Obama is trying to destroy the United States

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by Merc, Jul 11, 2010.

  1. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    Something that continues to just . . blow my mind is the startling number of people who are thoroughly convinced that Obama's "mission" is to destroy the United States. I mean, where can you even begin to think that's even within the realm of sane thinking? So because he doesn't share your views and ideas for the country, he's automatically trying to destroy the US? I wonder how many people think Obama and see this:


    Now, George Bush got a lot of hatred too and a lot of these ridiculous photoshopped attacks but you never heard popular opinion claiming Bush to be "the antichrist" or planning to destroy the US. Most of the criticisms at him were shots at his intelligence or complete disregard for the security and rights of Americans (don't even try to refute this, did you forget the Patriot Act already?) however there's a legitimate amount of people thoroughly convinced this guy is some sort of demon sent from hell's colon to bring about the apocalypse.

    So I guess my question is, why are people so goddamn infuriated by this guy to the point that they go overboard in their fantasies and nightmares about him? I don't like him so far but I'm not one of these loonies creating doomsday scenarios in my head of what creative way he's going to fuck us over next week. I guess I'm half ranting here but the next time I hear some single celled organism stating how the world is going to end or that Obama is some evil mastermind planning the downfall of a country that is too busy fucking itself already, I'm going to snap.

    Stop making me like this guy out of pity.,=
    Sim likes this.

  2. fractal

    fractal Eye see what you did ther

    How do you know people don't like him? Sorry I'm not from the US, so I don't know much, but the media portrays him favourably.
  3. idisrsly

    idisrsly I'm serious V.I.P. Lifetime

    Is it really that serious? I'm really surprised by this. I remember the run up to the elections a few years ago and from what was broadcast in SA, the people of America were all over the idea of Obama being the saviour. So yes, he did not live up to all the promises he made, but then show me a president who actually delivered on every single promise made in his campaign.

    I know I should not be laughing at this, but calling Obama the anti-Christ is just ridiculous. It is laughable. That is giving him far more credit than he is deserving of, not to mention the insult to the anti-Christ to come.

    Question : Do you think if Obama did some things differently, people would be more tolerant of him? Did he ever stand a chance to please the people? Was he ever really going to be loved/adored/respected by a nation?
    Sim likes this.
  4. CaptainObvious

    CaptainObvious Son of Liberty V.I.P.

    I do believe Obama is attempting to fundamentally change the US and how we do things. That doesn't make him a bad person, I believe he's done and trying to do the things he does because he honestly feels it is the direction the country should go in. I disagree with him in many respects but I do not doubt the sincerity in his heart.

    That being said yes I think if he did things differently there would not be as much criticism but there still would be some who do not like him no matter what. But that's pretty much true about any president.

    But we're using the word people and how they feel much too broadly. There certainly are groups who agree with he has done and appreciate his efforts and those who will approve of what he does no matter what.
  5. Tucker

    Tucker Lion Rampant

    Knee-jerk reactionaries have never been in short supply. Take a look at the body of early American political cartoons and you'll see just how little things have actually changed. It's simple mechanics; the farther from center a President is perceived to be, the more ire he'll receive from the distant wing.

    Last edited: Jul 11, 2010
  6. Gavik

    Gavik Registered Member

    Well he's doing a pretty shitty job of fundamentally changing things. Health care reform was written by the insurance companies, the wars have been escallated and expanded (into Pakistan and everywhere in the world), gays can't serve openly, Gitmo isn't closed and the bank bailouts just put more money in bankers pockets while not helping the economy. Sounds like the status quo to me.
  7. SmilinSilhouette

    SmilinSilhouette Registered Member

    I can't speak for others, but for me it is his total disregard and distain for the Constitution that he swore to uphold.

    :lol: I don't know about that, see Tuck's post. Also, I really wonder how many really think he's the anti-christ. I bet it is just more of an insult than a belief.

    Going overboard is just what many feel the most radical president in American history is currently doing.

    Cons and pity, :lol:
    Wade8813 likes this.
  8. Gavik

    Gavik Registered Member

    Implying that any elected official had any regard for it.
  9. Wade8813

    Wade8813 Registered Member

    I would guess that most people who are so opposed to Obama think that he's on a misguided mission, and the effect of that mission will be to destroy the US. It's not necessarily that he's malicious - just ignorant (which is common on both sides. If you vehemently oppose someone's positions, you either think they're malicious or you think they're ignorant (or both)).

    I really haven't heard the anti-christ thing being mentioned seriously, but then again I might not be listening to the right people :dunno:. But I'd imagine that the people who would use that label would be more likely to be the religious right; they wouldn't call Bush that, because they agreed with him.

    I heard people say Bush was destroying the US all the time.
    Sim likes this.
  10. Sim

    Sim Registered Member

    Here a few numbers, for that we know the numbers of people believing insane BS is really huge:

    Opinion: Scary new GOP poll - Yahoo! News

    Opinions like these are so obviously insane you'd expect only wingnuts can possible take them seriously (and I don't think the number of insane Bush haters was remotely as large) -- but thanks to a massive right-wing media machine, these insane hysterics have entered the mainstream.

    We are simply dealing with between 20% and 30% of the population at minimum that's completely disconnected from reality, believes in hysteric hyperbole and is trapped in a right-wing echo chamber that has created an alternate reality.

    Add to that that a large percentage of Americans apparently doesn't have the slightest clue what socialism actually is (the claim that Obama is a socialist is about as sane and justified as claiming Bush is a Nazi). Look, folks, people went on the streets in eastern Europe in 1989 to battle a socialist dictatorship and to end it -- to fight for freedom of speech, free elections, habeas corpus and a fair, independent legal system. They did *not* go on the streets because their taxes were raised, or because of a public health care system (in fact, most of those who opposed socialist dictatorship were strongly in favor of public health care, and believe that was actually one of the few good things in socialism). They went on the streets because they wanted to say what they want, to vote for whom they want, and to be protected from the government kidnapping them from the streets and torturing, while denying them a fair trial.

    On the other side, the very same people who don't know that public health care does not make socialism, much like a fresh wind in summer does not make a winter, didn't have the slightest problem when Bush ordered the Patriot Act and thus the use of torture and skipping the Geneva convention, when Bush ordered a violation of the most basic legal standard that suspects must be considered innocent until their guilt was proven by a fair, independent trial. Also, these people didn't care when Ashcroft proposed the "Operation TIPS" that would have created 10 times as many agents snitching on their neighbors as existed in communist East Germany. They didn't care at all. Yet they think raising taxes means tyranny.

    Courageous eastern Europeans, also East Germans, went on the streets in 1989 to protest against socialist dictatorship, just because this dictatorship did that exactly: Detaining people without a fair trial, using torture against suspects, violating legal standards, using a system of snitches to spy on the people. And they won: Socialist dictatorship failed and fair elections were called.

    When I visited a former East German Stasi prison (the secret police hiring snitches and extralegally detaining and torturing suspects), which now is a museum where former prisoners are giving a tour, one of these former prisoners (who showed the visitors little cells where waterboarding and other kinds of torture were employed) expressed his regret that maybe, his fight and the fight of his fellow victims of communist dictatorship for freedom and law may have been in vein, because today, the USA are doing the very same.

    Really, folks, you simply don't have a clue what you are talking about. Public health care or raising taxes is not "socialism" and it definitely is not dictatorship. You apparently don't even know how lucky you are, because you have free elections and a legal system that at least usually protects your rights (at least as you are not some brown sandnigger, a bearded member of a suspicious religion or simply with the wrong name at the wrong place). Obama is not even dreaming in his wildest nights about skipping fair elections, abolishing independent courts or cancelling the human rights defined in the Constitution.

    There is a difference between socialist dictatorship à la East Bloc, democratic socialism or even social democracy. Most free countries, the only exception being the US, have rather encompassing social welfare nets and thus a high amount of welfare redistribution -- but they all respect freedom of speech and media, the independence of courts, the basic right on fair trials, they don't use torture and they all have free elections. That's why they are free, although they have public health care and social programs.

    Socialist or communist dictatorships, on the other hand, are/were not bad because they had public health care. They were evil because there were no free elections, no free media, no respect for legal standards, no independent courts, snitches spying on their neighbors, and use of torture on suspects that had not been convicted of any crime. THAT'S why they were evil. That's why the people stood up in 1989 to topple these dictatorships -- yet most of these brave freedom fighters voted in favor of strong welfare nets and redistribution, once they had achieved their freedom.

    So I guess a major problem is that Americans simply don't know what tyranny is. That would concern the 50%+ who claim "Obama is a socialist".

    (On the 20%+ who believe Obama may be the anti-Christ, I don't know how even to comment in the first place ... they are from an entirely different planet I don't even begin to understand.)
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2010
  11. Sim

    Sim Registered Member

    I doubt it -- he is a Democrat. And large parts of the right wing media (especially FOX News, various right-wing talk radio stations a many blogs online) are telling their audience Democrats are actually communists with the secret agenda of turning America into a USSR-style dictatorship, conspiring to sell it to the Muslims (who all are fanatic terrorists), using the American flag as toilet paper, make the country weak because even the most cautious approach at diplomacy is "appeasement" like Chamberlain's towards Hitler, and no conspiracy theory, no matter how nutty or absurd it is, is below their self-respect. So Obama is evil by default, because he is a Democrat.

    Add to that a large portion of racism -- of course many of these racists will not admit it, and probably are not even aware of it, but don't forget many of the older whites were socialized in the 50s and 60s, when African Americans were still second class citizens. So maybe consciously, they embraced the idea they deserve full rights as citizens too, but unconsciously, many racist stereotypes remained: The meme of the lazy, sinister black survived in the concepts of the "welfare queen" or of "gang violence". Without noticing, the racism just adopted a new shape, which only superficially was less racist than the full-scale KKK racism.

    For example, not remotely as many people would actually believe Obama is a Muslim, if there was not the cliché of the "Black Muslim" socialist fanatic, "Black Power" activist à la Malcolm X and so on. And people would not remotely be as rejecting of this movement, if it wasn't for racist prejudices in the first place.

    You even got the full dosage of racist projection: Whites calling blacks "racist", when these blacks are proud on their heritage, which is completely acceptable for Irish Americans, Italian Americans and so on, especially if these blacks then even remind the white majority that they had been oppressed for a long time, and that racism still exists.

    Rant over.
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2010
    Tucker likes this.
  12. Mihael_langley

    Mihael_langley Formerly "Maikeru"

    Republicans make a lot of noise, and they have lots of influence on the media.

    If Someone destroyed the US was Bush, and he was elected twice. Sadly people all over the world changed the way they see the USA as a country and as an icon of reverence. For the 8 years of Bush's presidency the Us became the laughing stock of political and educational affairs... so obviously when they see someone making such a hard case of changing the US they cannot be pleased.
    Sim likes this.
  13. SmilinSilhouette

    SmilinSilhouette Registered Member

    55 Percent of Likely Voters Find ‘Socialist’ an Accurate Label of Obama? - The Campaign Spot - National Review Online

    Are 55% of likely voters all "right-wing" This poll was conducted by an organization that favors democrats. James Carville is hardly "right-wing" although he is a Clinton supporter and I believe the Clintons enjoy throwing mud on Obama for their own reasons.

    Apparently there is a large percentage of Sims that don't have the slightest clue what socialism actually is :lol: But I will help you, my friend.

    Socialism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

    Please note #3

    So are you saying that the tenents of socialism include the denial of free speech, elections, and fair trial? Do socialists support government kidnap and torture?

    Or are those aspects of too much government control and power and irrespective of the ideology? Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    The patriot act relates to international communications and has nothing to do with torture. Please note that Obama has continued this policy. The Geneva convention applies to those nations that have agreed to it and radical militant islamists are not a nation and have not signed on. Just ask the family of Daniel Pearl. Are enemy combatants now "suspects"? Should our soldiers Mirandize enemy combatants on the battlefield? Is this how America is expected to wage war? The enemy can do anything to kill Americans and our troops but we are supposed to try to arrest them, read them their rights, and provide a lawyer to defend them? Those rights are reserved for US Citizens, not enemy combatants. When Obama asked people to report their "fishy" neighbors to whitehouse.gov was that OK? I already pay more than 25% of my income in federal and state income tax (I am not "rich", my wife and I both work full time and make less than 80K yet pay over 20K in income tax) How much of my income should be forcefully taken from me to pay for extended unemployment benefits (that I am ineligible to collect) or the health care of others?

    So are you saying socialism = dictatorship?

    Really, Sim, what are you talking about? How is government forced redistribution of wealth not socialism?

    No, some of us do know how lucky we are, and we would like to keep it that way.

    Is that really your impression of the USA?

    Please tell me where the US Constitution gives the federal government the authority to force citizens to purchase anything, let alone insurance?

    Again are you saying that socialism = dictatorship? I didn't see that anywhere in the definition.

    Good for them! I believe that they should choose their own form of government. WE DID! The form we chose was one of limited federal powers! Those limits were designed to stop overreaching federal policies such as forcing citizens to purchase insurance. The Constitution should protect us from federal redistribution of wealth.

    What part of advocating for, appointing to position of power those who support, and inplementing law and policy that will result in the governmental redistribution of wealth is not socialism?
    And there you go, over the edge and into the downward spiral that inevitably ends with "if you oppose Obama then the underlying reason is racism"
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2010
    CaptainObvious likes this.
  14. CaptainObvious

    CaptainObvious Son of Liberty V.I.P.

    The Geneva Convention only also applies to uniformed soldiers, the intent being to protect soldiers who are only following orders and thus may object to what their country is ordering them to do but are doing it anyway. That isn't the case here.

    Just a couple things too. To say that the objection to what some people who are fed up with the federal government have is simply just raising taxes is to misunderstand the objection and are simplifying it. It's also a straw-man argument to say those who oppose what Obama is doing now weren't the ones opposing the Bush administration. And lastly, speaking of taxes, the more you pay in taxes the less you have in discretionary income. The more the federal government entangles itself in and the more it broadly defines it's powers under Article I of the Constitution the less power states and individuals have. I fail to see how that is so hard to grasp.
  15. Sim

    Sim Registered Member

    Hey buddy, thank you very much for your reply.

    I think calling Obama a "socialist", favorably or unfavorably, is not yet a sign to consider someone a right-winger.

    But I think the 20% to 30% I mentioned, who believe in wacky conspiracy theories, like that Obama was not born in the US, is a Muslim sleeper agent and/or may be the anti-Christ are more prevalent among right-wing nuts than in the center or the left side. But those are just labels anyway. Point is, 20% to 30% believe in absurd conspiracy theories.

    Hell, some believe Bush was responsible for 9/11 himself. Would you say they are most likely left-wing? Probably they are. But in the end, it means they are nuts.

    Thank you very much, my friend. But it seems you failed to understand what exactly is written there, because if you had understood it, you'd realize that it does not apply to Obama:

    I am not sure you fully grasped what this means. It would mean disowning and nationalizing ALL industries. There would no longer be private companies producing resources like coal, oil, gas, metals, minerals and so on -- ALL of them would be privatized. In addition to that, ALL producing factories would no longer be in private hands either, that means all factories producing cars, machines, and so on would be nationalized.

    In order to do that, the government would use massive coercion and force to disown the private owners. The only countries where this has ever happened were the Soviet Union and later its satellites in the East Bloc. Today, the only countries where such a system still exists, are North Korea and Cuba (possibly Belarus and Venezuela too).

    Furthermore: The government would have to disenact the free market determining prices of goods according to demand and supply, by using force and coercion to order prices. Again, the only countries on this planet where this still takes place are North Korea and Cuba (possibly Belarus and Venezuela too). In the past, this did take place in the Soviet Union and its East Bloc satellites.

    It's ridiculous to claim Obama is doing that, or even remotely contemplating in his wildest dreams to do that. Look at this:


    What Socialism Looks Like - Politics - The Atlantic

    Yes, now I see it. Nationalizing 0.21% of private businesses, not even by means of coercion, certainly is socialism. How could I be so blind? :rolleyes:

    Let's have a look at #2:

    You believe Obama is going to criminalize private poverty in general? Really?! OMFG!!! He will eat our babies too!!!!1!!


    And #3:

    The only countries, which according to Marxist theory were "socialist" (and yet on the transition to communism), were the USSR and its East Bloc satellites: Private property was not abolished yet, neither were private shops, just the means of production were nationalized and the prices ruled by the state. The only countries where this still applies on this planet are North Korea and Cuba (possibly Belarus and Venezuela too).

    If you believe Obama actually is in favor of any of that, you are a helpless nut, much like the crazy leftists who believe Bush himself staged 9/11.

    Also, the free democracies of Europe are not "socialist". They are free, after all. Here a little term you should be made familiar with:

    Social democracy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

    You are absolutely free to disagree with that. But you should notice that such a state is free and democratic, because nothing the government ever does to incorporate public welfare is done without legitimation by the free voter. If not, we are not dealing with "social democracy".

    I think Obama is not even a social democrat, because nothing he stands for even goes remotely as far as what European social democrats (all in free, democratic republics!) propose. But maybe you could say Obama is as much social democratic as possibly tolerated in America.

    Yes. I do think genuine socialism as definded above -- nationalization of ALL means of production by force and replacing the market process of determining prices by government orders -- indeed inevitably requires dictatorship, because there will never be majorities in favor of that. And, as the historical examples have shown, all governments ever attempting to do so inevitably became dictatorships.

    Social democracy, on the other side, never did that. It's their basic tenet to never do anything of the like without public consent. Only when they have a democratic and legal legitimation, they take over private businesses. And so far, no social democracy has ever skipped the market mechanism of building prices by demand and supply.

    That's why the Social Democrats (SPD) in Germany, for example, were the only party that strongly opposed both Communists and Nazis, and the only party to uphold the Weimar Republic against Hitler's takeover.

    I agree that absolute power absolutely corrupts. That is why I will never support any dictatorship, be it socialist, fascist or whatever else.

    Yes. That is why I am very disappointed in Obama. And I am very pessimistic for the US. Because when not even someone like Obama ends it, nobody will. Certainly no Republican will ever end it, this party has been taken over by big-government fascists and theocratic fanatics.

    If someone like Ron Paul ever gets a significant say within that party again, I stand corrected.

    But they are citizens of various nations. They deserve a clear legal status, either as prisoners of war (then they must be treated according to the Geneva Convention), or as criminals (then they deserve a fair civil trial).

    Inventing the term "enemy combattants" was just a clever move by the fascist shysters of the Bush administration (John Yoo et al) to strip human beings of all rights, as was creating the term "subhumans" for the Nazis.

    And then, basic human rights apply to all people, regardless of status. Hence they are called human rights.

    When they are caught on the battlefield, they are POWs. When they are caught somewhere else as most of those who were extralegally detained, they are suspects of a crime, and thus deserve a fair trial.

    If you want America to be better than Hitler, Stalin or Saddam, then yes. If you don't care if America becomes just as evil as Hitler, Stalin or Saddam, then maybe not.

    Bullsh*t. It's called human rights. If you think Americans are worth more than other human beings, you are not the slightest bit better than the Nazis who believed "Aryan" Germans are worth more than Jews or Russians.

    If that's indeed happened and it's not one of the many blatant lies by FOX News and/or the many fascist pundits, then no, it's not ok at all.

    When it's democratically decided, you have no reason to complain, because you have your say in it: You can vote for a candidate who is against these measures, or you can even become a candidate yourself and win a majority of votes.

    As long as you have these rights, you should shut the f*ck up and respect the decision of you and your fellow citizens, because it's just what you have to pay for all the benefits the state gives you: A legal and law enforcement system to protect you and your possessions, and army that protects you from foreign threats, an insurance system that will help you once you fall on your nose and need it, and much more. I know it's no longer en vogue to ask what you can do for society, but what society can do for you -- but somewhere, the egoism has to stop. And I think it's at the point where society has democratically decided on something (where you have had your say in too).

    Yes, see above. (But again: Obama isn't nowhere near "socialism", neither are the free democracies of Europe).

    No. Not if you have had your say in it, and continue to have it.

    By the same logic, any state would be "socialism" that requires the citizens to pay any taxes at all, and if that's just for an army or a legal system.

    Fair enough. It's your right to oppose that. If you do, then vote against it, and/or become a candidate yourself and gather majorities against it, to make a difference.

    If you think it violates the Constitution, you are even free to file a complaint against it and courts will rule on it.

    If that doesn't yield the effect you desire, then shut the f*ck up and respect the decision the voters have taken, instead of villifying them by calling them tyrants, comparing them to Hitler or doing anything of that kind.

    Yes. The US have kidnapped an innocent German citizen from the streets in Munich, detained him for several months, tortured him. After he was finally released, a US court even denied him justice.

    Khalid El-Masri - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Since Bush's rule, America's image as leader of the free world has been completely destroyed. Today, I have about as much trust in American justice as in the justice of the socialist East German dictatorship (1949-1989). That means your situation is maybe not as bad as it was in Nazi Germany, but still pretty bad: Your courts are not independent. They will cover the government even when it commits the most heinous crimes against humanity (the very reason you wage wars against certain peoples).

    America no longer is the country of freedom and justice, and no sane person on this planet believes these empty words anymore. Get used to it.

    I have no idea and don't give a fuck on it if it does. Your Constitution is not God's own word, after all. And it's obviously most deficient and even suitable to be abused to justify the most heinous violations of basic civil rights. So I guess your Constitution is a piece of shit anyway.

    My point was that even if that happens, it does not equate tyranny.

    Yes. You can see in history, it always required dictatorship when genuine socialism was introduced.

    Get over your slavish obedience into some deficient hundreds of years old document that has not prevented your government from committing the worst and most blatant human rights violations any so called "free" state has ever committed. If it didn't manage to do that, maybe you should face the truth that it's not worth much.

    Well, I guess I need to say it explicitly again, because apparently, you got it the wrong way:

    I was not talking about all people opposing Obama. I even explicitly mentioned "older white voters".

    I want to apologize for anything I say that may offend any of you. It's really no personal thing. I don't hate any of you, even when I get passionate. It's just that a few friends of mine have experienced dictatorship and government arbitrariness personally. Even my father's life has almost been destroyed by the East German tyranny (he managed to escape from there shortly before the Berlin Wall was built in 1961, which then kept him from seeing his family for decades). So I don't have much tolerance for obvious violations of human rights and justice, no matter if the US Constitution greenlights them, or if they are committed in the name of counter-terrorism. Injustice is injustice. And human rights apply to all human beings, no matter if American shysters claim they do not.
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2010

Share This Page