Civil but Uncivil - The Obama Paradox

[sjt18]

Then you have entirely too thin of a skin.

That from an Obama supporter?

Look, the reason that his presidency is so "divisive" is because that's the road the Republicans took with Obama as they did with Clinton.

No. The reason it is so divisive is that the media ran cover for how radical Obama's associations and ideals were. In part as a back lash toward Bush, Obama got elected.

How did Dems demonize Bush? Well, the oil companies made record profits, bail outs, failed stimulus packages, a protracted war in the Middle East, record debt and deficits... Now suddenly to the MSM and liberals all of those things are okie dokie.

Obama says things like he wants to "fundamentally transform" the country then goes out and threatens to crush our country with new spending we cannot afford. He is an ideologue... who happens to be almost 100% wrong on virtually everything. He has a deep, fundamental lack of understanding of economics. If he DOES understand economics then the most suspicious of his detractors are right and he is intentionally trying to destroy our free market economy.

The level of intensity directed towards Obama (as it was Clinton) was entirely disproportionate to the level of antagonism from the Democratic side.

That isn't even close to being true. George Bush was demonized for many of the same things Obama is getting pass on. Remember the NG thing with Bush? Virtually meaningless to his capacity to serve as President, right? Yet the media was like a dog with a bone. Yet why haven't they demanded Obama release his academic records and writings? Why haven't they pursued his issues with the Illinois BAR Association?

Bush was absolutely lambasted when gas rose from around $1.30 to over $2... though it went back down to the $1.70's later. Gas has doubled in Obama's two years... He actually has energy and monetary policies which have contributed greatly to the rise... where is the 24 our blame game? It isn't there. Instead, the media is drooling all over him because OBL was killed.

I've never seen a President's every action twisted and manipulated against him as has happened to Obama. The level of hysteria directed towards him is phenomenal and based upon a host of alarmist proclamations with little basis in reality, like the "Obama is a Marxist" stuff.

Obama is a genuine Progressive. Progressivism philosophically has common roots, goals, and forms with marxism and fascism. The fundamental idea is that the state can and should direct the economy (and thus everything) to assure a "fair" outcome.

Part of this is politica, which I understand as the Democrats do the same stuff, but the level of vitriol combined with the general lack of understanding why the vitriol is a serious issue on the right wing.

What exactly do you think we do not understand?

The modern development of this came in 1994 when the Republican takeover happened and the new freshman Congressman interpreted it as a mandate to assault and harass Clinton on every possible occasions. That's why we get sideshows like the Monica Lewinsky nonsense that doesn't happen under a Republican president.

What a load of non-sense... Which one of those guys made Clinton attempt to rape Broderick in the WH? Which one of them forced him to get involved with Whitewater? Which ones forced him to have an illicit affair with a 20 something girl which in a corporate office would result in his dismissal and prosecution for sexual harrassment? Which Republican forced him to swear and oath then lie through his teeth?

Clinton committed a felony. I don't care if he was lying about the number of licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop... if you do it under oath, it is a felony. ANY OTHER CITIZEN would have been convicted and punished. He should have too. Under the Constitution, he should have been impeached and convicted. How can he be trusted to be the chief law enforcement officer of the country if his oath can't be trusted?

 

[sjt18]

Were the protesters who Obama supported in Wisconsin "civil" as they vandalized the state house and made angry, hateful comments toward the legislature? Were they being "civil" when they presented fraudulent doctor's notes to their schools and work? Has Obama's buddies at the SEIU (leader has visited the WH more than any other private individual) EVER been civil? Is "Common" civil?

 

[sjt18]

Baloney. Please explain to me the equivalent of the birth certificate issue or the daily outrage meter or a political party being born right as his term began specifically to antagonize him. Bush's problems were of his own doing, which resulted in a bi-partisan contempt of his ineptitude as president. Nixon had a smaller window of vitriol because he was actually a criminal, but skipped town before it truly hit the fan.

So what you are basically saying is that people who vehemently disagree with Obama and are genuinely OUTRAGED at what he said he would do, what he's done, and what he says he wants to do should just shut up and roll over, right?

When the Tea Party rallies VERY PEACEFULLY and leaves places cleaner than they were when they arrived then they are being vitriolic.... but when the unions tear the Wisconsin capitol to shreds then that's OK, right?

I don't know just how deluded you are but most people who are standing up against Obama aren't chasing phantoms. The health care law is real... and threatens to further burden our nation with unsustainable gov't spending and debt. Obama's policies concerning energy are real. His monetary policies are very, very real AND intentional. He is literally devaluing the currency to cover the real value and destructiveness of his spending and debt. His stimulus package failures are real. His payoffs and bailouts to supporters on Wall Street and unions is real.

You can close your eyes and blame his critics all you want... but facts are stubborn things.

 

[JayVols]

Were the protesters who Obama supported in Wisconsin "civil" as they vandalized the state house and made angry, hateful comments toward the legislature? Were they being "civil" when they presented fraudulent doctor's notes to their schools and work? Has Obama's buddies at the SEIU (leader has visited the WH more than any other private individual) EVER been civil? Is "Common" civil?

Are you sure you are the one to be making the civility agrument?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[volinbham]

Are you sure you are the one to be making the civility agrument?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I don't think anyone should - that's my main point.

It's a steaming pile. Don't tell me you want civil and constructive dialog then go and completely trash your opponent and ascribe all sorts of nefarious motives and half-truths to their arguments. This applies to either side.

 

[JayVols]

I don't think anyone should - that's my main point.

It's a steaming pile. Don't tell me you want civil and constructive dialog then go and completely trash your opponent and ascribe all sorts of nefarious motives and half-truths to their arguments. This applies to either side.

Hey man, I agree with you. I just find it ironic that several of those making the civilty case have little respect for the opinions of opposing views.

I may not agree with someone's view, but I try to respect it. It's America. We can think what we want. I will tell you what I think and give reasons why I think that way. If you disagree, cool. No hard feelings, as long as one has a rational argument to support that view.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[lawgator1]

His military service was attacked (similar to the birther)

notsureifserious.jpeg

 

[volinbham]

notsureifserious.jpeg

I am serious - it was a question of legitimacy at it's core.

 

[sjt18]

Are you sure you are the one to be making the civility agrument?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I am very civil. I am not soft. I don't waver on things I believe. But I mostly try to avoid name calling, strawmen, ad hominem arguments, and such. I do not threaten people, force them to agree with me, or even tell them they cannot or should not be allowed to hold opinions contrary to mine.

 

[sjt18]

Hey man, I agree with you. I just find it ironic that several of those making the civilty case have little respect for the opinions of opposing views.

I don't respect those views. I DO respect the absolute rights of others to hold them... and my right to argue against them.

I may not agree with someone's view, but I try to respect their rights and freedom. It's America. We can think what we want. I will tell you what I think and give reasons why I think that way. If you disagree, cool. No hard feelings, as long as one has a rational argument to support that view and my right to differ and say so.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

With those two changes, you just spoke for me.

 

[JayVols]

I don't respect those views. I DO respect the absolute rights of others to hold them... and my right to argue against them.



With those two changes, you just spoke for me.

I have a problem with the way some argue their views. Belittlement gets us nowhere. It drives us further apart. But, I'm a big boy. I can handle it. (Not at all implying that you belittle anyone.)
Posted via VolNation Mobile