Obama the most polarizing president in decades

reply to post by WTFover


Disagree. Objections to Obamas policies, such as continuation of Guatanamo, support of the Patriot Act, continuation of DHS, allowing the insurance lobby to have massive input on health-care "reform", caving in on financial "reform" so it is largely toothless, etc etc etc are all perfectly legitimate criticisms, and are clearly not race-based. There are other criticisms of his policies that are equally non-race-based.

It is the frenzied cries that "He wants to destroy America!" or "he wants to re-distribute the wealth!" that are, IMO, justifiably labelled as racist.

Just to use the "he wants to re-distribute the wealth" claim as an example: Obama has a tax policy. Some folks don't like his tax policy, and go off on the "re-distribute the wealth" nonsense. But it's just a tax policy. ALL tax policies are nothing more or less than re-distribution of wealth. Some of that re-distribution is of benefit to the country as a whole, some is not.

But to get all excited about Obama as a closet Socialist or whatever, based on disagreement with his tax policy, is absurd, and another reason for the frenzy may be sought.

Having observed this for a couple of years now, I am convinced that much of the anti-Obama frenzy is in fact race-based.

Coherent disagreement with his policies, which is indeed present in the national discourse, is not, again IMO, race-based, and it is rarely labelled as such.

To jump onto the bandwagon that all criticism of Obama is immediately labelled as racist is simply not true.

Originally posted by glome
Consider the utter lunacy of some of the charges against him:

Buddy .. he DOES want to redistribute the wealth .. he has said so many times. It's his mantra. He IS socialist and sought out the radicals and socialists to get advice and mentoring from. He said so, read his books. He may not be a secret muslim, but he sure snuggles up to the most radical of them (The Muslim Brotherhood). And he is definately racist against white people .. again, read his books and listen to him ('that's how white folks will do you' .. 'my grandmother was a typical white person' ... ) He spent 20 yeas in that anti-white cult in Chicago listening to how white people were the reason for all the worlds problems. If he wasn't a racist, he wouldn't have been able to stomach the crap there and he would have walked out. Those are the facts. It's not lunacy to expose them.


That being said ... people are saying that Obama isnt' polarizing but his party is. Hate to break it to ya'll ... but he's a card carrying member of his party and is in good standing with them. He IS part of the party and he spews a party line. So yes, he is part of the polarizing ...

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic


Race has nothing to do with it. He is a terrible president, all on his own merit.

He is just th latest in a long string of CFR/Trilateral/Bilderber puppets.

Until we see though the globalist smokescreen and attack the globalists pulling the strings there will be no change. Believe in that.

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
It is the frenzied cries that "He wants to destroy America!" or "he wants to re-distribute the wealth!" that are, IMO, justifiably labelled as racist..

That ol' race card again.
BTW .. major democrats, including Obama, disagree with your opinion.

NY POST

"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the blue-collar worker asked.

After Obama responded that it would, Wurzelbacher continued: "I've worked hard . . . I work 10 to 12 hours a day and I'm buying this company and I'm going to continue working that way. I'm getting taxed more and more while fulfilling the American Dream."

"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama told him. "I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too.

Then, Obama explained his trickle-up theory of economics.

"My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody

Washington Examiner - Obamacare was mainly aimed at redistributing wealth

Health reform is "an income shift," Democratic Sen. Max Baucus said on March 25. "It is a shift, a leveling, to help lower income, middle income Americans."

In his halting, jumbled style, Baucus explained that in recent years "the maldistribution of income in America has gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind." The new health care legislation, Baucus promised, "will have the effect of addressing that maldistribution of income in America."

At about the same time, Howard Dean, the former Democratic National Committee chairman and presidential candidate, said the health bill was needed to correct economic inequities. "The question is, in a democracy, what is the right balance between those at the top ... and those at the bottom?" Dean said during an appearance on CNBC. "When it gets out of whack, as it did in the 1920s, and it has now, you need to do some redistribution. This is a form of redistribution."

CS Monitor - Obama Takes First Step to Redistribute Wealth

How Obama's tax proposals are spreading the wealth ... take from the productive who earn it and give to the unproductive who dont' earn it. That's spreading the wealth.
Wall Street Journal - Spreading the Wealth Isn't Fair

Obama Wealth Redistribution an Unattained Civil Right

www.youtube.com...

July 7, 2010 Obama appointed Donald Berwick to be the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. According to Obama's appointee - (and I quote) “Any health care funding plan that is just equitable civilized and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional.”

reply to post by FlyersFan


Very well done, you have grasped the basic intent of my post.

Did you notice in the next paragraph after the one you quoted where I said

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
ALL tax policies are nothing more or less than re-distribution of wealth. Some of that re-distribution is of benefit to the country as a whole, some is not.

?

Yes, his tax policies are re-distributing the wealth. You may disagree with that re-distribution (or not); I may agree with it (or not).

This, just like every tax policy ever enacted, is re-distribution of wealth.

The racism is in that there is a big frenzy about this president having a wealth-re-distribution tax policy. Where was the frenzy when GW Bush enacted his wealth re-distributing tax policy?

Yes, there was criticism, and justifiably so. And there is justifiable criticism of Obama's. But there was not the metaphoric foaming at the mouth on the part of so many when Bush enacted his.

The difference? Not anything real, related to the health of the country or our economy. You may recall the mess the economy was in at the end of Bush's term, after his wealth re-distribution had been in effect for a while. And there was still no frenzy.

No, again based on observation, it is my opinion that the intensity and duration of this myth (the myth being that Obama is doing anything fundamentally different than has gone before) is due to the wavelengths of visible light that are reflected from Obama's exterior.

reply to post by glome


Maybe stop being a key board commando and do some research for once? The only other option is go back to re-runs of oprah ?

You obviously have no idea nor any understanding of the Commerce clause?

The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”

The Commerce Clause has historically been viewed as both a grant of congressional authority and as a restriction on states’ powers to regulate. The “dormant” Commerce Clause refers to the prohibition, implied in the Commerce Clause, against states passing legislation that discriminates against or excessively burdens interstate commerce. The meaning of the word "commerce" is a source of much of the controversy.

The Constitution does not explicitly define the word. Some argue that it refers simply to trade or exchange, while others claim that the founders intended to describe more broadly commercial and social intercourse between citizens of different states. Thus, the interpretation of "commerce" affects the appropriate dividing line between federal and state power.

The Court is still willing to recognize a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause, if it does not find activity substantial enough to constitute interstate commerce it will not accept Congress's stated reason for federal regulation.

I think it would be you, who needs to attend law school, for reading comprehension is not your strongest suit!

The numbers are split pretty well.
Those who can/will benefit from obama
vs
Those who won't.

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
To jump onto the bandwagon that all criticism of Obama is immediately labelled as racist is simply not true.

And, conversely, jumping on the bandwagon that any criticism of Obama is solely based in racism, is simply not true. Which is the attitude of the member I addressed, proven by his laundry list of criticisms, without regard for those items which do have credible and convincing supporting evidence.

To paraphrase Sam Adams, it is the advice of WTFover to those who choose to perpetuate the racism claims "no longer to insult the feelings of an exasperated people", by distracting from the debate.

Originally posted by WTFover
And, conversely, jumping on the bandwagon that any criticism of Obama is solely based in racism, is simply not true.

Absolutely agree. It is no more accurate to say that all criticism of Obama is race based than it is to say none of it is.

It is my opinion that more of it is race-based than is generally recognized.

And bringing this back to the actual topic of this thread, I believe that the perception of Obama as the most polarizing president in decades is to a substantial degree a result of the propaganda and misinformation being spread about him that is largely race-based.

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic


Though I don't agree, nor do I disagree, the topic is debatable at best. You stated in your previous post:

substantial degree a result of the propaganda and misinformation being spread about him that is largely race-based.

Though few things I have heard as of late could be construed as race based, IMO, it would seem most comments/opinions are based off of his actions, statements, etc. I can't see where reading from a teleprompter every speech could be deemed racist.
I would like to point out, that though I'm not a fan of Obama and his minions, I would like to identify, that regardless of where a group of people are discussing the current POTUS, I think the " race based" propaganda you speak of, is actually people trying to defend Obama, but have no real merit within their argument, so, to defend their stand point, which mind you , is based off of emotion, they play the " race card". The " race card " always has, and always will be the only source of argument those who disagree can play. Sometimes, all the facts, even actions of the defended, will fall on deaf ears....which requires a emotionally based response.

~

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic


I suggest you watch this video it was an interview with then senator Obama and then decide if he lied then or now? seems obvious to me he believes in redistribution of wealth.





Oh one more thing notice he considers the constitution negative liberties! What hes saying is these are obstacles set up by the founding fathers and needs to be changed so the government has more power to do things for you. Thats scary in it self.

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
I can't see where reading from a teleprompter every speech could be deemed racist.

However, given that every president since the invention of teleprompters has used them and used them heavily, I must question why the constant attention to this? It is hardly indicative of the man's competence that he uses a teleprompter.

So why, when every president that had them available used them, is it a big deal that Obama does also? Is it the normal grasping for anything possible to use to criticize, as seems so common these days? If Obama's policies are so deadly, why the attention to his use of an extremely common piece of technology, instead of his policies?

Originally posted by dragonridr
I suggest you watch this video it was an interview with then senator Obama and then decide if he lied then or now? seems obvious to me he believes in redistribution of wealth.

Thanks for the link, I'll watch this when I'm at a computer that supports videos.

In the meantime, of course he believes in redistribution of wealth! It's called a tax policy. Just like every other tax policy ever. You may not agree with the intent or results of his tax policy, but it is nothing new. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy etc ad nauseum all believed in redistribution of wealth by means of tax policies.

So, as with the teleprompter question, why all the interest and perception that this is something new when this president does the same thing, ie redistribute wealth by means of tax policy?

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic



Allow me to clarify, I used the " teleprompter" scenario, as my basis of example. Not suggesting anything that would question his intellect.

reply to post by Whereweheaded


You totally misunderstand. It's not about intellect. It's about criticizing one man for something that they ALL do and did. Why pick him out? Yes, you used the teleprompter example as a critique that you don't see as raced-based. If it's NOT race-based, why didn't all the white presidents get criticized for doing the same thing?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Because in the past, presidents have been able to make eye contact on an 80% basis, where as Obama stares into the prompter 99% of the time, with a 1% address to the crowd. Huge difference. I was waiting for your response in his defense. Took longer than usual, your slipping~

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It's about criticizing one man for something that they ALL do and did. Why pick him out?

So, everyone should just keep quiet and permit things to continue this path of destruction, on which most agree we now find ourselves, just because "they ALL do and did it"?

Should there not come a time that we should say "Enough is enough"? Or, do we just keep erasing and redrawing the line in the sand?

This generation does appear to be more polarized than those past and, yes, it appears to only be getting worse. I've said before I believe this past election cycle has done more to promote class warfare, than any other. And, I believe it is by design.

Why does Obama not present decisive proof of his being a natural-born citizen (and I believe his is) rather than obstructing those who seek such evidence? Why? Because it takes attention from much more important topics. It causes division and adds fuel to the fires, so two groups of people are locked into a seemingly meaningless debate. One side says he not a citizen and the other calls them racists.

Meanwhile, as we take the bait and preoccupy ourselves with petty "polarizing" bickering, our country is collapsing all around us and those who hold the positions of "power" don't have a clue about how to save it.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e49475adc43c.jpg[/atsimg]

Okee Dokee

Lets review the info presented in the OP before we all go jumping to wild assumptions. Shall we?

If you will note the article in the OP derived it’s data from a recent Gallup poll. In the past, I considered Politico to be relatively neutral and unbiased so I’m a little surprised to see creative license taken to sensationalize their headline. Please compare below:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/83ca51a05182.jpg[/atsimg]

To be clear the chart / data is rating Presidential second terms. A snapshot in history if you will.

Granted, I’m no rocket scientist but it would appear to me that the statistical divide is being skewed by the unprecedented low approval rating by the Republican Party rather than anything else. I’ve highlighted the low values in red:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c2d2029c02b1.jpg[/atsimg]

To be fair, not until President Obama completes his full term in office can his approval rating as President be accurately compared to his predecessors. Please see chart 2 in link below to see how recent previous Presidents stack up,

www.gallup.com...

Quite frankly, I’m a little disappointed that no one has focused on analysis of the hard data presented in OP before firing off replies in typical knee-jerk reaction. Admittedly I am struggling to make this point and hoping someone with more statistical knowledge will assess the facts presented in the poll results. Numbers don’t lie and as they say, the facts are stubborn. Flame away, at least I tried to make a reasonable case.

Toodles……………..kk

Originally posted by WTFover
Why does Obama not present decisive proof of his being a natural-born citizen (and I believe his is) rather than obstructing those who seek such evidence? Why?

I don't know and neither do you. It's beside the point. That has nothing to do with his policies or the job he's doing as president. It's just another issue to cloud the waters. Just like the teleprompter critique, his paternity, his religion, his friends, his sexual preference and all the other petty criticisms people make.

Especially when he's continuing the policies of the presidents before him. That's the worst thing he's doing. And he's doing some good stuff, too.

Meanwhile, as we take the bait and preoccupy ourselves with petty "polarizing" bickering,

And with THAT, you hit the nail on the head. I was trying to figure out how to say that it's not OBAMA who is causing the polarization, it's people like us. Who take the bait and decide to argue about it. We need to be smarter.