I no longer support Obama!

Cant you guys identify a trolling expedition?

The OP probably never did like Obama, and never supported him. The whole (very short) original post just stank of troll. Not to mention the OP's siggy.

signature
Something about the cold just makes me want to be a socialist commie pinko bastardette.

Redistributed wealth? That sounds like what the right wing was saying Obama would do, not a "liberal." And, no one who supported him in the first place would expect him to fix everything the first month he was in office.

Dont feed the troll points. Thats probably the real motive for this thread. That and the amusement of watching people defend Obama for not being Jesus.



[edit on 22-2-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]

It would seem to be a trolling expedition indeed, lol. Flashbacks of John Kerry and his famous "I was for it, before I was against it" statement. In all seriousness the OP should just give it a little more time. Obama will not support the fairness doctrine, but that doesn't mean the congress will follow suit. Even so I think this would be filibustered by the other side. Honestly though, with all of the turmoil going on in our country and the world I personally would be disgusted if he jumped on this ridiculous band wagon. Why not spend the first term of his presidency trying to build energy independence or something useful to the people of this country rather than trying to "protect" the mindless who can't think for themselves from developing opinions that may not reflect your own. Change the channel or the radio station or just keep plugging your ears, just because someone says something does not mean you have to give it merit or even listen to it for that matter. That is why we have free speech, you can't stop people from speaking but you can choose not to listen to them and even if it did pass, you would still have to put up with FOXNEWS on cable, lol.

What do you think to that one?

Alan Keyes, a three-time presidential candidate, called President Obama a "radical communist" and a "usurper" and said with him in charge, America "is going to cease to exist" at a pro-life fundraiser Thursday.

"Obama is a radical communist and I think it is becoming clear. That is what I told people in Illinois and now everybody realizes it is coming true," said Keyes who ran unsuccessfully against Obama for the Senate in 2004. "He is going to destroy this country and we are either going to stop him or the United States of America is going to cease to exist," said Keyes.

In an interview in Hastings, Neb. with a KHAS reporter at the fundraiser, Keyes called Obama an "abomination" for some of his pro-choice views.

Full article: rawstory.com...




Mod Note: One Line and Short Posts – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: Trim Those Quotes - Please Review this link


[edit on 23-2-2009 by DontTreadOnMe]

reply to post by skeptic1


Couldn't have said it in simpler terms myself

I never have supported Obama but since he is our president now, I wish he actually does some GOOD revamping - not the constitution...

This man has done more "GOOD" for te nation as a whole in the past 35 days than the former administration did in 8 years.

Y'know, something that I find really strange is the fact that the new Attorney General just stated that the Feeral DEA will no longer stomp on the rights of each state to determine their policies regardingmedicinal marijuana, basically returning the rights of self determination to the States.

For years, and even now, you hear he GOP go on and on about States rights", but none of them said a thing when the DEA would arrest people engaging in lawful behavior according to the State statutes.

Now, the new President is saying that the feds will no longer interfere, and you still hear the GOP spouting off about states rights. Hypocrites.

Originally posted by sadisticwoman
He is not enough like I'd hoped he'd be.

But what you hoped he'd be is not what he said he'd be... Sounds like you set up expectations that were at odds with what he campaigned on.

I wanted him to support the fairness doctrine.
I wanted him to redistribute the wealth more evenly.
I wanted him to socialize more things.

He stated firmly that he doesn't support the fairness doctrine.
He stated firmly that he believes in capitalism, not socialism. Why you supported him is puzzling if these policies were important to you.

So, I wonder why you hoped for things he was against...

But he's not being liberal enough!

Yes, that is going to be a problem for many people who were expecting an extreme liberal, which he never claimed to be. That was the opposition in the election that said he was "the most liberal senator". That simply wasn't true. And many liberals who were anticipating socialism are going to be greatly disappointed. Because Obama promised that he'd govern from the center and be the president of ALL the people, not just half of them.

I'm sorry you're disillusioned after a month, but maybe you should have gotten clear on his positions before supporting him in the first place.

reply to post by sezsue

I didn't vote for Obama, because I didn't agree with some of the policies he supported, and also, as far as I could tell there wasn't enough positive information (for me) out there about him to be able to make an informed opinion as to what he would do if he became president.

remeniscent of Bush 43

I mean, people can SAY anything, but their past actions have to back up their words, and I couldn't really see any past actions that backed up some things he said he would do. Also, once they say they are going to do something, they have to follow through on it.

remeniscent of Bush 43

Most everything he had done in his life before deciding to run for president was deliberately hidden, such as, all his college records, any writings he did in college, any clubs he belonged to. All these things give an idea of what peoples values are.

remeniscent of Bush 43 Reserve records, Community service for..? undisclosed...

A lot of his senate records were lost or hidden, and a lot of the votes that were on record were just "present" instead of for or against something. He said he didn't agree with certain bills that had been passed, but then when he had a chance to vote against them again, he changed his mind, before he won the election, he said he would bring the troops home as soon as possible, but he has done the opposite of what he said he would do on many occasions already.

Bush 43 didn't "win the election" he was appointed through suspect means

Also, since he's been in office, his choice of officials for his administration are setting off the alarm bells, because if you look at their credentials, they are all old re-runs from previous administrations, who have baggage, or from sectors that have helped to cause some of the problems we are currently having, especially in the financial sector.

Does Paulson, Rove, Halliberton, Carlyle Group Ring a bell>?

Because of all the above, Obama always had a mask on to me, and now the mask is being taken off, and I think the more time goes by, the less people are going to like what they see. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see how I can be, to be honest.

Bush 43 couldn't "Hide" his inadequecies, mask or not.

(Also, I didn't vote for Bush either time, and I didn't vote for McCain either, so it's not a case of sour grapes, I just had a bad feeling about Obama, the same way I did about Bush........I've always been a pretty good judge of character that's been honed by 20 years worth of customer service experience. Both Bush and Obama made my bullsh*t detector go crazy.)

Moot

However, he's president now, and we've got to live with what we've got. Like my mother used to always say, we've made our bed, now we've got to lay in it.........

Do we?
Did we?


[edit on 28-2-2009 by imd12c4funn]

Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by sadisticwoman

 

The Fairness Doctrine?? If you don't like what's on the television or the radio, turn it off or change the channel.

Redistribute the wealth?? You've got to be joking. That idea is wrong, unfair, and just panders to the sense of entitlement that some people in this country wrongly have.

Socializing more things? The government has shown that they suck at running things. Look at Social Security and Medicare....Social Security is bankrupt (or almost) and Medicare is a farce. The Veteran Administration is a sad example of the government taking care of people. They can't handle what they already have.....and you want them to take over even more only to screw it up??

Please.... :shk:

[edit on 2/22/2009 by skeptic1]

i don't understand why presenting both sides to a discussion is so scary to people...that is what the fairness doctrine is.

the entire financial system of the U.S. has been practically wiped out by wall street and you think that the GOVERNMENT CAN'T RUN ANYTHING?

i see you don't care about redistributing the wealth UPWARD...by cutting benefits to workers for years and years, moving jobs offshore to a dollar a hour work force, continually cutting money that goes into job training, cutting money that goes to veterens affairs, cutting money to (WIC) women,infants, and children program, cutting taxes for the wealthy all during the last administration...sorry, but I HAVE GIVEN WELFARE TO THE WEALTHY LONG ENOUGH!!!!

Just give him some time. Barack is smart enough to know that shifting everything into Left of Lenin Mode this early into his administration would only end in a train wreak even with the mindless leaders in his party being as dumb as wood tics. Give him time . This Man truly scares me badly.

Originally posted by jimmyx
i don't understand why presenting both sides to a discussion is so scary to people...that is what the fairness doctrine is.

I don't think it's presenting both sides of an argument that people find distasteful, it's being forced to. Being legally forced to present both sides of an issue is further dumbing down of society and we really don't need that.

It's my responsibility to listen to various sources, gather information and form my opinion. I don't want anyone to be forced to tell me both sides just so I don't mistakenly believe everything I hear on FOX News or MSNBC.

We have to leave some responsibility to the people, IMO.

I HAVE GIVEN WELFARE TO THE WEALTHY LONG ENOUGH!!!!

On this, I couldn't agree more.

If those are things you want, get a time machine and go live in Nazi Germany, should fit you nicely.

reply to post by sadisticwoman


This just sounds like someone who wants a free handout. Distribute the wealth my Butt, you just don’t want to work. If you want money do like everyone else and get a job!!!!!!

I think the OP is completely sincere, personally.

The right ran a campaign trying to paint Obama as a "radical leftist," which is nowhere near the truth. By global standards he is a typical center-right American Democrat. In Europe he would be (and is) considered a right-winger, just not as much of a rightist as Bush.

Unfortunately, it appears some real radical leftists bought the propaganda being pumped out by the right, and now they are disappointed that he has not turned out to be Che Guevara or something

He never was, and never would have gotten elected if he was.

reply to post by jimmyx


The "fairness doctrine" is nothing short of forcing radio stations to not air radio shows that make them money. Regardless of what we may think of them, the Sean Hannity's and Rush Limbaugh's make them money by the bushel basket full...why is that? Because people listen to them in the millions. If the left can come up with someone that can bring in that number of listeners they'll put him or her on, too. For the gov't. to force radio stations to do this is just wrong...

Well, I'm trying to figure out where the problem is then. Understand that it would be very bad to have an ultra right or left winger in office. It's always best to have someone in the middle of the board, as everything needs to have a checks and balances system... moderates tend to have a better concept of this than "ultras" do.
Now, besides that, how can you expect Obama to have completed the items you want done in the bottom of your post?? He hasn't been in office nearly long enough to make those type of changes yet anyways, nor do I think he will. Why would he redistribute the wealth?? people earn their money, and that's what they get. There is no free ride out there, nor should their be. We already have programs in place for those who need more. I know it's not perfect, but neither is life.
I understand the want for change, but only extremely short term goals could have been completed by now. Large, ultra pivot swings take quite a while to accomplish. Give it some time. Maybe you will wind up getting some of what you are looking for. Understand that no President will fit in with absolutely all of your personal political platform. Knowing this, if you picked the Presidential candidate that comes the closest would have been the right choice for you.

Thanks, Rev. Jeff D.

Originally posted by bighdelight


Well, I'm trying to figure out where the problem is then. Understand that it would be very bad to have an ultra right or left winger in office. It's always best to have someone in the middle of the board, as everything needs to have a checks and balances system... moderates tend to have a better concept of this than "ultras" do.
Now, besides that, how can you expect Obama to have completed the items you want done in the bottom of your post?? He hasn't been in office nearly long enough to make those type of changes yet anyways, nor do I think he will. Why would he redistribute the wealth?? people earn their money, and that's what they get. There is no free ride out there, nor should their be. We already have programs in place for those who need more. I know it's not perfect, but neither is life.
I understand the want for change, but only extremely short term goals could have been completed by now. Large, ultra pivot swings take quite a while to accomplish. Give it some time. Maybe you will wind up getting some of what you are looking for. Understand that no President will fit in with absolutely all of your personal political platform. Knowing this, if you picked the Presidential candidate that comes the closest would have been the right choice for you.

Thanks, Rev. Jeff D.

Well, as I have never heard Obama use the actual term "redistribute the wealth" ( he may have, I just never heard him use those exact words) he's used the term "share the wealth" which -and this is JMHO- means the same to me. He may do it or not, but I believe I heard it was one of his campaign promises. I don't agree with that ideal at all. I believe the person who works hard for thier money should be able to keep it.

I do agree with you whole heartedly that it's better to have a moderate at the helm than an "ultra righty" or "ultra lefty".

Redistribution of Wealth?
You want to pay for other people's drug and alcohol habits?
I didn't sleep or skip class in high school, I made the grades and went to college etc., I already am paying for all of those lazy kids through the form of taxes, which goes to the too used and abused WELFARE. I really wonder what is on the minds of the people who want equal wealth for everyone, when clearly, the majority of people worked to the point of being sick to gain that wealth. Then people like the OP, who I am guessing is the one that slept in high school, can feed off of the ones that actually WORKED for that nice car and home.