"I see very little hatred of Obama at all."
I agree. Obama is a mediocrity and he is in over his head, but he is not hated (he's not unlikeable).
The emotion of opponents is not directed at the man but at an agenda of out-of-control power-grabs and money-spending sprees that would harm our prosperity and our freedom. Cap & tax, ObamaCare, trillion dollar deficits, tax-and-spend-and-regulate and arrogantly dismiss anyone who questions authority on this.
That's what is ginning up the emotion at the Tea parties and the townhalls. Not Obama the man.Comment Posted By Freedoms Truth On 20.08.2009 @ 14:15
"got me to thinking about how it would be possible to quantify the level of hatred directed against President Obama because of his race."
Simple: Determine those who oppose Obama but would support a white liberal President in the same situation.
All you have to do is compare Obama's support level across racial categories with support for white Democrats as a whole across racial categories.
The only detectable difference that I am aware of is that Obama gets higher minority support.Comment Posted By Freedoms Truth On 20.08.2009 @ 12:54
5 Star comment.
As per #1, I think the real blindness on the part of the left is (1) They beleive their own lies, and (2) They dont realize that the liberal MSM is not in control of the conversation.
We have liberal mouthpieces insisting that Obama not only is not for single-payer, but Obama saying he was *never* for it ... and just a few clicks away on the right-osphere you can find clear rebuttal to that lie:
“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. " - Barack Obama, 2003
see also:Comment Posted By Freedoms Truth On 19.08.2009 @ 10:32
But there are many good ideas that haven’t even been examined because the liberals have a monumental distaste for the free market. Government cannot order costs to be lowered any more than King Canute could order the tide to recede.
Dead on target comment.Comment Posted By Freedoms Truth On 23.07.2009 @ 13:49
First, bravo for standing up on this.
We have far too dangerous of an Obama agenda to get diverted by nonsensical fairy tales like claims that Obama wasnt born in Honolulu and/or isnt eligible.
Second, Rush is in some ways the heartbeat of conservative movement and sometimes you are wrong to critique him, but in this case he is playing with fire.
Third, I think it might be better to lance the boil of birther-ism but not excluding those who have these questions but letting them post and hash it out in a specific thread like this. The true innoculation is th e light of truth. Unfortunately, censoring this only keeps it alive.
You say- "You cannot debate them without legitimizing their arguments." - wrong. Debate can at least expose and shape the form of the complaint. If you assert he was born on Aug 4, 1961, in Honolulu like the official bio says, the published COLB from state of Hawaii says, newspaper announcements say, etc., you have a set of facts and evidence to be referenced or refuted. The REAL problem is that the movement is fueled not by paranoia, but by DOUBTS. The Factcheck COLB picture is pretty convincing to most but is not 'proof' to those who desperately want to doubt.
This is even moreso valid on the Federal court level. These suits got tossed, but I dont understand why the judges didnt recognize that citizens have standing to ensure elected official satisfy eligibility requirements and rule on the merits. How hard would it be, if its open-and-shut, to go through the facts, get a judge to look at the COLB and Hawaii records and declare them valid and declare Obama eligible on the basis of birth in Honolulu and say 'case closed'?
I believe the boil can be lanced with a "Case Closed" case for Obama's eligibility. I urge you to consider writing/posting it.
To #27: Excuse me but the 911 truthers were NEVER on the right per se. We dont own them, they are/were assorted nuts. Think Rosie ODonnell. And Alex Jones.Comment Posted By Freedoms Truth On 22.07.2009 @ 16:11
"Obama’s base is out here, we’re large, and motivated."
Obama's base:Comment Posted By Freedoms Truth On 2.07.2009 @ 12:35
Out - just told the family you're gay.
Here - at the public library on the internet. No place else to go that's free.
Large - overeating out of nervousness to the point of binging.
Motivated - trying hard to find a job in this high unemployment Obama economy. Not succeeding, hence 'here'.
"The Carter analogy is quite apt, but the field had been cleared for Reagan"
Ahem - REAGAN cleared the field of more than half a dozen contenders in 1980 with his "I paid for this microphone" moment in NH. Nothing was set in stone in 1977. Nothing about 2012 is set in stone yet.
It never is 3 years out. If it were, we'd have had a Guliani vs Hillary race last year.Comment Posted By Freedoms Truth On 2.07.2009 @ 12:30
"A nitpick re: Biden: IIRC, he’s one the very few senators whom one wouldn’t use the appellation “wealthy” to describe. I’m sure he’s well-off compared to the average American, but next to the average senator he’d be a pauper."
That's because he's an idiot who cant manage his money well and racked up a lot of debt. A fiscal-anti-conservative. But he still manages to live in what most Americans would call a mansion.Comment Posted By Freedoms Truth On 2.07.2009 @ 12:26
"might not be the best Republican candidate we could put forward in 2010"
oops, 2012 that is.
2010 is reserved for deposing Queen Nancy.Comment Posted By Freedoms Truth On 2.07.2009 @ 12:24
"2) There is a growing recognition among liberal elites that Obama is heading for a one term presidency unless they can destroy each and every Republican challenger who emerges."
Rick, I'll take door #2.
"I’m about half way between you and Stacy. She was clearly unprepared, and she was clearly on a losing and poorly managed team. But the biggest cause of the portrait presented of her to the public was the press’s seething hatred of her."
BINGO, we have a winner. Why does the press hate her? I dunno, but I was watching History channel and they were talking about how the EASTERN PRESS OF 1830 ABSOLUTELY HATED COUNTRY BUMPKIN DAVEY CROCKETT. Unlettered backwoods hunter Crockett was too much for the DC elites. "hey, that's Palin!" I thought.
"Why are people who don’t like her in a tizzy about her? Because she’s (a) relatively attractive and (b) a hilarious train wreck"
The trains are fine. Alaska had done better under Palin than America has done under Obama.
"If there is someone running for office that I think will destroy everything, then not only am I going to not vote for them, but I am also going to campain against them."
SO HOW HARD DID YOU WORK TO STOP THE MOST DESTRUCTIVE PRESIDENT IN OUR LIFETIME, BARACK OBAMA?
"If Obama could get elected, any Empty Suit deluxe could. That is what excites the Palin folks. If a bumbling, economic illiterate like Obama could be elected, certainly someone more marginally qualified than he could be. And let’s face it: Obama was and remains at the far margins of qualification. Obama had his Katrina/Iraq/name it moments in the first five months of his Administration as he engaged in economic policies that will implode in the near term."
Governor Sarah Palin might not be the best Republican candidate we could put forward in 2010, but she would do a better job than Obama, as would hundreds, nay thousands, of other decent folks who have a clue about the economy, love freedom, and have a patriotic care for the sovereignty and security of USA.Comment Posted By Freedoms Truth On 2.07.2009 @ 12:22