GOP Finds Little to Like in Obama's Inaugural Address

Jan 21, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Roll Call

Enjoying Inauguration Day, from left, Nancy Pelosi and husband, Paul, Eric Cantor and wife, Diana, John A. Boehner and wife, Debbie, participate in the presidential review of the troops.

Comments
141 - 160 of 177 Comments Last updated Feb 10, 2013
Don Joe

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#143
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

gossamer wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe in a free society .... Life would be better.
'

Yea, a free society would be better. A society where labor was rewarded would be better than one where the rich make all the rules and get to take the fruit of everyone's labor. A society were the idle rich have to contribute, where they actually have some skin in the game. A society where all people are equal according to the law.

Yup, that would be a lot better than what we have now.
jackson

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#144
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>'
Yea, a free society would be better. A society where labor was rewarded would be better than one where the rich make all the rules and get to take the fruit of everyone's labor. A society were the idle rich have to contribute, where they actually have some skin in the game. A society where all people are equal according to the law.
Yup, that would be a lot better than what we have now.
I don't know, it seems to me the government is making all the rules, and he's making them up as he goes along, all to suit himself.
I work for rich people. I do MY job. The fact that they do THEIR jobs is why I can do MY job. They pay me a fair wage for my labor.
The "idle rich" do indeed contribute, much more than you or I, and they do have skin in the game.
Why do you think you have it so badly? Could it be that now you have people telling you that you have it badly? Could it be that now you have someone telling you that you should have more (although you were happy with your life 10 years ago)? "Oh, oh, yeah, the rich have too much and I don't have enough!"?
Sure, I would like to make $100,000 a year, but I don't. I didn't educate myself to work in that layer of expertise. I have a very good life, better than my parents, but probably, unfortunately, better than my children because those who hired people are no longer hiring. Lack of certainty in this economy is causing them to hold off, causing them to keep from updating equipment, growing business, adding jobs.
I don't think the "idle rich" had anything to do with that. Government overspending and overreaching and overregulating (all for a long time now)-- the government is the one making the rules.
Don Joe

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#145
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

jackson wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know, it seems to me the government is making all the rules, and he's making them up as he goes along, all to suit himself.
I work for rich people. I do MY job. The fact that they do THEIR jobs is why I can do MY job. They pay me a fair wage for my labor.
The "idle rich" do indeed contribute, much more than you or I, and they do have skin in the game.
Why do you think you have it so badly? Could it be that now you have people telling you that you have it badly? Could it be that now you have someone telling you that you should have more (although you were happy with your life 10 years ago)? "Oh, oh, yeah, the rich have too much and I don't have enough!"?
Sure, I would like to make $100,000 a year, but I don't. I didn't educate myself to work in that layer of expertise. I have a very good life, better than my parents, but probably, unfortunately, better than my children because those who hired people are no longer hiring. Lack of certainty in this economy is causing them to hold off, causing them to keep from updating equipment, growing business, adding jobs.
I don't think the "idle rich" had anything to do with that. Government overspending and overreaching and overregulating (all for a long time now)-- the government is the one making the rules.
Government making the rules??? Sort of. Lobbyists are paid by corporations and they write the rules, and hand them off to congress who has already accepted millions of dollars to pass such legislation, no matter what is in it.

Thus you and I are over regulated, while large corporations and the very rich are under regulated. So the government is the means by which the rich make the rules.(You remember the golden rule, he who has the gold, makes the rules.)

I do my job as well. In fact several of my employers have earned many millions based on my work. I get a very tiny percentage of what I earn for my employer. Not 10%, not 5%, a very tiny amount.

Neither of my parents graduated high school, I have multiple college degrees. They had a much higher standard of living than I ever had. Consider my father retired after 30 years in a factory, with full pay, plus cost of living increases; full medical and other benefits. I don't even have full medical now, with high co-pays, in spite of paying (between myself and my employer) over $2000 per month. I have already been working for over 45 years. The standard of living is falling, and it is intentional. With a lower standard of living, the rich get more of the fruit of the labor of those who work.

As to the rich hiring, that is somewhat of a fallacy. The rich do indeed hire, but only when they have customers to sell your services to; or customers to sell the products you make. You don't have the option to sell your own services in the same way. It is problematic to sell any products you make, without a large corporation behind you.
jackson

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146
Jan 28, 2013
 
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Government making the rules??? Sort of. Lobbyists are paid by corporations and they write the rules, and hand them off to congress who has already accepted millions of dollars to pass such legislation, no matter what is in it.
We don't elect lobbyists to congress, we elect senators and congressmen/women. Their votes are their sole responsibility. They have the right to say no to a lobbyist, they have a right to tell them they don't agree and to send them away. I don't blame lobbyists, they are doing a job for which they get paid.
It's such a sad state of affairs if our elected officials have no more ethics than to take bribes. If that is truly the case, we need to refuse to re-elect them and get a completely new slate in there, with the mandate that lobbyists will not get in the door.
Each representative needs to represent their state to the best of their ability. They should be able to learn and research this bill or that proposal with their staff, not lobbyists who have a vested interest.
I'm all for new faces -- fresh viewpoints, more compromise, less rigidity. That would be nice.
One of many reasons I voted for Romney, but maybe it would be best to start at the bottom and work our way up the ladder.
It would be helpful if we would follow their decisions better and pay attention to their records. We should be more responsible citizens.
Don Joe

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147
Jan 28, 2013
 
jackson wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't elect lobbyists to congress, we elect senators and congressmen/women. Their votes are their sole responsibility. They have the right to say no to a lobbyist, they have a right to tell them they don't agree and to send them away. I don't blame lobbyists, they are doing a job for which they get paid.
It's such a sad state of affairs if our elected officials have no more ethics than to take bribes. If that is truly the case, we need to refuse to re-elect them and get a completely new slate in there, with the mandate that lobbyists will not get in the door.
Each representative needs to represent their state to the best of their ability. They should be able to learn and research this bill or that proposal with their staff, not lobbyists who have a vested interest.
I'm all for new faces -- fresh viewpoints, more compromise, less rigidity. That would be nice.
One of many reasons I voted for Romney, but maybe it would be best to start at the bottom and work our way up the ladder.
It would be helpful if we would follow their decisions better and pay attention to their records. We should be more responsible citizens.
We don't elect??? That is correct. The elections are rigged more ways than one might think. From Gerrymandering, to Diebold programs that can change the counts at a moments notice, to throwing people off the voter rolls because they live in districts that don't usually vote the way the party wants; all the way to the USSC voiding an election and installing the guy they want as president.
You are correct, it is the responsibility of the person "elected" but if they don't go along, they will be surely defeated next time. It becomes almost impossible to overcome the dollars that would be spent against you.
lobbyists are doing the job they are being paid to do. I do hold that against them. Just like if some guy gets paid to drive a get-away car in a bank robbery. Just because some rich guy pays you, doesn't make it right.
Yes, let's throw them all out, and start fresh. Romney was not fresh and he comes across to me as a psychopath. Obama is not fresh either and he conforms to the standard operating procedures. We also have to get the massive amounts of money out of the elections, and we have to get real news in the media, instead of just 24/7 propaganda.
When the politicians are lying to get elected, then the news should report that. Everything is not equal. Because one candidate made a misstatement doesn't mean the other can say anything, no matter how bizarre.
jackson

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#148
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
We also have to get the massive amounts of money out of the elections, and we have to get real news in the media, instead of just 24/7 propaganda.
When the politicians are lying to get elected, then the news should report that. Everything is not equal. Because one candidate made a misstatement doesn't mean the other can say anything, no matter how bizarre.
I agree with these statements.
Everything is not equal -- and I will also add that the mainstream media is more influential than Fox and therefore there are millions who aren't responsible enough to do their own research about our politicians and who would best represent their interests. They just hear the speak and say "that sounds good" when it is all spin and no substance. And the news denounces misstatements on the right and excuses and underreports misstatements on the left.
Don Joe

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

jackson wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with these statements.
Everything is not equal -- and I will also add that the mainstream media is more influential than Fox and therefore there are millions who aren't responsible enough to do their own research about our politicians and who would best represent their interests. They just hear the speak and say "that sounds good" when it is all spin and no substance. And the news denounces misstatements on the right and excuses and underreports misstatements on the left.
The mainstream media, including Fox, and the right wing radio broadcasts are pure propaganda. There is almost no news content at all. We need to go back to where, in order to use the public airwaves, real news must be broadcast.
Chicopee

Danbury, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

jackson wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't elect lobbyists to congress, we elect senators and congressmen/women. Their votes are their sole responsibility. They have the right to say no to a lobbyist, they have a right to tell them they don't agree and to send them away. I don't blame lobbyists, they are doing a job for which they get paid.
It's such a sad state of affairs if our elected officials have no more ethics than to take bribes. If that is truly the case, we need to refuse to re-elect them and get a completely new slate in there, with the mandate that lobbyists will not get in the door.
Each representative needs to represent their state to the best of their ability. They should be able to learn and research this bill or that proposal with their staff, not lobbyists who have a vested interest.
I'm all for new faces -- fresh viewpoints, more compromise, less rigidity. That would be nice.
One of many reasons I voted for Romney, but maybe it would be best to start at the bottom and work our way up the ladder.
It would be helpful if we would follow their decisions better and pay attention to their records. We should be more responsible citizens.
Washington is hopelessly corrupted and we're looking more like the late, great Roman Empire every day.
Lobbyists spend an estimated $40 billion anually in Washington. We have Congressman and Senators that get elected to office and stay there for life. And when they do retire, they're multi-millionaires, though the job doesn't pay nearly that kind of money.
We have family dynasties in Washington, where those who are "in" buy and barter influence for their spouses, sons, daughters and in-laws, not based on skill or integrity, but purchase power.
And unfortunately, an electorate that foolishly plays along, aligning themselves by either R's or D's and justifying all a manner of ills based on that and nothing else. History guarantees the eventual outcome and has since the beginning of time. And it won't be pretty.
Truman

Boise, ID

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Chicopee wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny...I heard about the 59 voting districts in Philly without a single Romney vote...and I don't watch FOX.
Nearly 48 million people voted Republican. FOX isn't that popular!
What's troubling to me is that the only response you can come up with regarding voter fraud is to slam a news network. So, fraud is okay with you as long as the guy you voted for came out ahead?
No the issue is there are no creditable examples of 'vote fraud' being a factor in this Election.
Obama WON.
The Repubs LOST.
Period.
As usual the Right is unable to come to grips with that reality and have resorted to their usual Default Mode of Denial and Finger pointing ANYTHING except the TRUTH which is that their idealogy and Candidate was rejected by the Majority of American Voters.
gossamer

Warren, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
The mainstream media, including Fox, and the right wing radio broadcasts are pure propaganda. There is almost no news content at all. We need to go back to where, in order to use the public airwaves, real news must be broadcast.
Fox is the only news station that holds Obama accountable. None of the others do. Not one. They never even broke the story on Beghazi.

And thats what our news organizations are suppose to do. Not tell him how wonderful he is.

“or Fox News”

Since: Jan 08

Vicksburg, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

gossamer wrote:
<quoted text>
Fox is the only news station that holds Obama accountable. None of the others do. Not one. They never even broke the story on Beghazi.
And thats what our news organizations are suppose to do. Not tell him how wonderful he is.
No, Fox is more like the annoying gnats and mosquitoes on a nice spring evening
Chicopee

Danbury, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#154
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

Truman wrote:
<quoted text>No the issue is there are no creditable examples of 'vote fraud' being a factor in this Election.
Obama WON.
The Repubs LOST.
Period.
As usual the Right is unable to come to grips with that reality and have resorted to their usual Default Mode of Denial and Finger pointing ANYTHING except the TRUTH which is that their idealogy and Candidate was rejected by the Majority of American Voters.
Of course there was voter fraud in this election...there's voter fraud in all elections and no one party is guiltier than the other.
Did that fraud rise to the level of changing the outcome? No, not this time. But we have a governor here in our state that might have very well gotten into office by foul means in a very close race, in a district that pulled the same stunt in a previous election.
That I voted for that governor is irrelevent, at least for me. Voter fraud disenfranchises honest voters and none of us should be okay with it.
Don Joe

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

gossamer wrote:
<quoted text>
Fox is the only news station that holds Obama accountable. None of the others do. Not one. They never even broke the story on Beghazi.
And thats what our news organizations are suppose to do. Not tell him how wonderful he is.
??? Fox News is not a news station. They are fantasy fiction. They are not watchable. They are self-contradictory. You have to actively forget what they said yesterday to believe the new story today. They are the worst of the bunch. They won't report anything that Rupert Murdoch doesn't approve of.

The other channels are propaganda as well, but none tell us how wonderful Obama is. The left is more critical of Obama than the right. Either way, Obama continues to push the GOP platform and continues almost all of bush's self-destructive policies.

As to what a news station is supposed to do, is report the news. They are not supposed to make stuff up in an attack on someone simply because that guy is on the other side. They are not supposed to say that since some guy on the other side might have done something wrong, anyone on our side can do any horrible thing without accountability. Fox News does not hold Obama accountable, they simply make random attacks with no evidence.

The next time you watch them, see how many times, they don't report, but simply ask leading questions. For example, are you going to be arrested for killing your wife? Are you going to be arrested for pedophilia, or did you pay enough money to the prosecution to get you off the hook. We tried to look at the prosecutors bank account to see if there was money transferred into his account, but we did not get permission. What are they hiding?
jackson

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#156
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
??? Fox News is not a news station. They are fantasy fiction. They are not watchable. They are self-contradictory. You have to actively forget what they said yesterday to believe the new story today. They are the worst of the bunch. They won't report anything that Rupert Murdoch doesn't approve of.
The other channels are propaganda as well, but none tell us how wonderful Obama is. The left is more critical of Obama than the right. Either way, Obama continues to push the GOP platform and continues almost all of bush's self-destructive policies.
As to what a news station is supposed to do, is report the news. They are not supposed to make stuff up in an attack on someone simply because that guy is on the other side. They are not supposed to say that since some guy on the other side might have done something wrong, anyone on our side can do any horrible thing without accountability. Fox News does not hold Obama accountable, they simply make random attacks with no evidence.
The next time you watch them, see how many times, they don't report, but simply ask leading questions. For example, are you going to be arrested for killing your wife? Are you going to be arrested for pedophilia, or did you pay enough money to the prosecution to get you off the hook. We tried to look at the prosecutors bank account to see if there was money transferred into his account, but we did not get permission. What are they hiding?
You are describing ALL the mainstream media to a T. They choose flattering pictures for the left and nasty pictures of the right. They report good things about the left and bad things about the right.
They report spin. They do not report facts without those facts being spun in a liberal direction. They report no facts favorable to the right.
If you think Fox does those things and mainstream media does not, then you must be both blind and deaf to what you are seeing and hearing from the left.
The msm does NOT tell us how wonderful Obama is? Maybe not in so many words -- but every story that includes him shows a flattering picture of him, spins the facts to make it appear that the right is always wrong and the left is always right. Not in blatant words, but in subtle phrasing and with multiple meanings.
So much of what Obama says has a variety of possible interpretations. "It's for the children" can really mean it's better for the left or will require more government. Yet the msm won't interpret anything he says in any way other than how it benefits the left. They report what they want to hear, whether the statement could have meant something different or not.
It's Obamaspeak -- there could be multiple meanings, but the left only hears what they want to hear, not what he could really mean.
Fox would report what those multiple meanings could be and the left doesn't want to hear it.
You say the other side would do something wrong and they would report it but it would be ok if their side did it? How about Bush's spending? It was bad for him but ok for Obama to do more and more and more??? It was "unpatriotic" according to Obama, to add to the deficit, yet ok when he did it? Where's the media holding him to task on all his failed political promises? You can bet your sweet --- that they would have been all over a republican president who made those statements and promises yet delivered no more than Obama did on his.
The msm gives Obama a pass on whatever he wants to do, and he knows it. The left will villify Fox for him, so he doesn't have to. And the left lap it all up like a thirsty puppy.
Don Joe

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

jackson wrote:
<quoted text>
You are describing ALL the mainstream media to a T. They choose flattering pictures for the left and nasty pictures of the right. They report good things about the left and bad things about the right.
They report spin. They do not report facts without those facts being spun in a liberal direction. They report no facts favorable to the right.
If you think Fox does those things and mainstream media does not, then you must be both blind and deaf to what you are seeing and hearing from the left.
The msm does NOT tell us how wonderful Obama is? Maybe not in so many words -- but every story that includes him shows a flattering picture of him, spins the facts to make it appear that the right is always wrong and the left is always right. Not in blatant words, but in subtle phrasing and with multiple meanings.
So much of what Obama says has a variety of possible interpretations. "It's for the children" can really mean it's better for the left or will require more government. Yet the msm won't interpret anything he says in any way other than how it benefits the left. They report what they want to hear, whether the statement could have meant something different or not.
It's Obamaspeak -- there could be multiple meanings, but the left only hears what they want to hear, not what he could really mean.
Fox would report what those multiple meanings could be and the left doesn't want to hear it.
You say the other side would do something wrong and they would report it but it would be ok if their side did it? How about Bush's spending? It was bad for him but ok for Obama to do more and more and more??? It was "unpatriotic" according to Obama, to add to the deficit, yet ok when he did it? Where's the media holding him to task on all his failed political promises? You can bet your sweet --- that they would have been all over a republican president who made those statements and promises yet delivered no more than Obama did on his.
The msm gives Obama a pass on whatever he wants to do, and he knows it. The left will villify Fox for him, so he doesn't have to. And the left lap it all up like a thirsty puppy.
Ahh, the division. If we fight against each other, we won't notice all our wealth being stolen.

We can disagree about what is going on. You claim that Obama is only given good press then explain why liberals are so opposed to everything he does? He was supposed to end bush's wars. He did not end the Iraq war in a timely fashion, and since we still have troops there in harm's way, I don't really believe it has ended. The troops in are still in Afghanistan, fighting, but no one knows why. When you claim Obama gets good press, it is because Obama supports all the republican causes. That is not good press, that is an attack on Obama.

There are many reasons to not like Obama but they never get in the press.

1. The continued wars.
2. Extension of the Pat Act and signing the NDAA
3. Economic stimulus that only goes to the rich, just like bush
4. Refusal to even investigate the criminality of the bush administration.
5. Giving China a most favored trading nation status.
6. Obama Care, just like Romney care, designed to take the wealth from those who work, and give it to a few very rich insurance company CEOs, for nothing in return.
7. Continuation of allowing the public airwaves being used for partisan political advantage, effectively removing the option for millions of people to actually obtain the news, to be informed.
8. Refusal to enforce immigration laws on the books, refusal to investigate those companies who hire illegals knowingly.
9. Refusal to reverse the lack of oversight for most executive branch regulations, such as assuring food safety, safe medicines, safe work practices and conditions, safe products.
10. Refusal to install effective management procedures to remove the massive waste and fraud in most activities the government is involved in.
(Ran out of space, there are a lot more.)
gossamer

Warren, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

1

Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
??? Fox News is not a news station. They are fantasy fiction. They are not watchable. They are self-contradictory. You have to actively forget what they said yesterday to believe the new story today. They are the worst of the bunch. They won't report anything that Rupert Murdoch doesn't approve of.
The other channels are propaganda as well, but none tell us how wonderful Obama is. The left is more critical of Obama than the right. Either way, Obama continues to push the GOP platform and continues almost all of bush's self-destructive policies.
As to what a news station is supposed to do, is report the news. They are not supposed to make stuff up in an attack on someone simply because that guy is on the other side. They are not supposed to say that since some guy on the other side might have done something wrong, anyone on our side can do any horrible thing without accountability. Fox News does not hold Obama accountable, they simply make random attacks with no evidence.
The next time you watch them, see how many times, they don't report, but simply ask leading questions. For example, are you going to be arrested for killing your wife? Are you going to be arrested for pedophilia, or did you pay enough money to the prosecution to get you off the hook. We tried to look at the prosecutors bank account to see if there was money transferred into his account, but we did not get permission. What are they hiding?
Fantasy fiction? Give me one example.

That goes for any of you other Obama media ass kissers.

One example please.
jackson

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159
Jan 31, 2013
 
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
There are many reasons to not like Obama but they never get in the press.
1. The continued wars.
2. Extension of the Pat Act and signing the NDAA
3. Economic stimulus that only goes to the rich, just like bush
4. Refusal to even investigate the criminality of the bush administration.
5. Giving China a most favored trading nation status.
6. Obama Care, just like Romney care, designed to take the wealth from those who work, and give it to a few very rich insurance company CEOs, for nothing in return.
7. Continuation of allowing the public airwaves being used for partisan political advantage, effectively removing the option for millions of people to actually obtain the news, to be informed.
8. Refusal to enforce immigration laws on the books, refusal to investigate those companies who hire illegals knowingly.
9. Refusal to reverse the lack of oversight for most executive branch regulations, such as assuring food safety, safe medicines, safe work practices and conditions, safe products.
10. Refusal to install effective management procedures to remove the massive waste and fraud in most activities the government is involved in.
(Ran out of space, there are a lot more.)
"Ahh, the division. If we fight against each other, we won't notice all our wealth being stolen." Where do you believe the division started -- because he's black? That's most definitely not true unless you are blaming the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and others for creating an issue that wasn't there.
"You claim that Obama is only given good press then explain why liberals are so opposed to everything he does?"
If liberals are so opposed to everything he does, why did they re-elect him -- simply because he's a dem?? I voted for Romney because I believe him to be an honorable man, with business and leadership experience (which is totally lacking in this president). I didn't vote for him because he is a Republican.
And he gets good press because he supports Republican causes? Are you nuts? I don't think you are, so I'm totally confused by this. He is the darling of the mainstream media -- and they call Republicans obstructionist because they won't work with him. You think that's supporting Republican causes?
Now let's get to your numbers as to why not to like Obama (?? I thought you leaned left?). Again, these are all issues the msm does not discuss or report ad nauseum as they would have if it was a Republican in office.
Regardless, these reasons you list to not like Obama are not the same reasons the right doesn't like Obama.
About #7. Do you really want the government to control our airwaves - or say what can and can't be aired? Give the American people at least SOME credit to listen to what they choose, and not listen to things they don't like. It is a staple of the first amendment. I choose not to listen to certain things, and I'm sure you won't listen to some things, too. If no one listens, advertisers will go away and the programming will disappear. I want the choice to listen to what is said and make up my own mind on its veracity -- government censorship would begin a HUGE slippery slope to insanity. Besides, a large majority of the airwaves are dominated by left-leaning politics -- but the left wants the right-leaning programming to go away. Censorship of speech and viewpoints is a very bad thing.
I agree with your numbers 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10.
I disagree with your points of view in numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7.
Billy Ringo

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#160
Jan 31, 2013
 
The fact the Goofy Old Party didn't like the Inaugural means it was a smashing success......

Witness the Rethugs scurrying around like rats trying to address their "hispanic problem".
Don Joe

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161
Jan 31, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

jackson wrote:
<quoted text>
"Ahh, the division. If we fight against each other, we won't notice all our wealth being stolen." Where do you believe the division started -- because he's black? That's most definitely not true unless you are blaming the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and others for creating an issue that wasn't there.
"You claim that Obama is only given good press then explain why liberals are so opposed to everything he does?"
If liberals are so opposed to everything he does, why did they re-elect him -- simply because he's a dem?? I voted for Romney because I believe him to be an honorable man, with business and leadership experience (which is totally lacking in this president). I didn't vote for him because he is a Republican.
And he gets good press because he supports Republican causes? Are you nuts? I don't think you are, so I'm totally confused by this. He is the darling of the mainstream media -- and they call Republicans obstructionist because they won't work with him. You think that's supporting Republican causes?
Now let's get to your numbers as to why not to like Obama (?? I thought you leaned left?). Again, these are all issues the msm does not discuss or report ad nauseum as they would have if it was a Republican in office.
Regardless, these reasons you list to not like Obama are not the same reasons the right doesn't like Obama.
About #7. Do you really want the government to control our airwaves - or say what can and can't be aired? Give the American people at least SOME credit to listen to what they choose, and not listen to things they don't like. It is a staple of the first amendment....government censorship would begin a HUGE slippery slope to insanity..... Censorship of speech and viewpoints is a very bad thing.
I agree with your numbers 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10.
I disagree with your points of view in numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7.
Where did the division start? A long time ago. It's been around for most of my life at least.

Why did liberals re-elect Obama. Most picked Obama over Romney because Romney comes across as a psychopath to me, a sociopath to most. Obama was the lesser of two evils. Obama was so bad, I could not vote for him, even to prevent Romney. I voted third party.(But then I didn't vote for Obama the first time either.)

They call republicans obstructionists because they are so dramatically obstructionist. Not just a bit, but dramatically so. For example, Obama care is the same as Romney care, created by the Heritage foundation to transfer wealth from the middle class to very rich republicans. Obama gave nothing to liberals, and everything to the GOP and still they refused to vote for it. The USSC almost voided it simply because Obama had a D after his name. In the end Roberts couldn't refuse the enormous amounts of money for ruling in the GOP's favor, or was it Obama's favor. Obama should have changed his political affiliation to republican.

As to #7, do I want the government in control of the airwaves? Shouldn't I trust the public to watch what they want? You are misrepresenting my position. I want the government to regulate, not control. For example, if one person owns all the media, and only his position is provided, then the public has no choice of what to watch, they only get the one person's opinion, never any real news. This is why the government should not allow one person or a small group to control all the media, within a given area. That is happening in a great many areas and should be stopped. Additionally, when a news source intentionally lies to push it's agenda, it should be held accountable. I am not for government censorship. I want real news, not government approved news; not news approved only by one party, like you have on Fox News.

I don't buy that the left wants the right leaning media to go away, they just want them to start telling the truth.
gossamer

Warren, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162
Jan 31, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did the division start? A long time ago. It's been around for most of my life at least.
Why did liberals re-elect Obama. Most picked Obama over Romney because Romney comes across as a psychopath to me, a sociopath to most. Obama was the lesser of two evils. Obama was so bad, I could not vote for him, even to prevent Romney. I voted third party.(But then I didn't vote for Obama the first time either.)
They call republicans obstructionists because they are so dramatically obstructionist. Not just a bit, but dramatically so. For example, Obama care is the same as Romney care, created by the Heritage foundation to transfer wealth from the middle class to very rich republicans. Obama gave nothing to liberals, and everything to the GOP and still they refused to vote for it. The USSC almost voided it simply because Obama had a D after his name. In the end Roberts couldn't refuse the enormous amounts of money for ruling in the GOP's favor, or was it Obama's favor. Obama should have changed his political affiliation to republican.
As to #7, do I want the government in control of the airwaves? Shouldn't I trust the public to watch what they want? You are misrepresenting my position. I want the government to regulate, not control. For example, if one person owns all the media, and only his position is provided, then the public has no choice of what to watch, they only get the one person's opinion, never any real news. This is why the government should not allow one person or a small group to control all the media, within a given area. That is happening in a great many areas and should be stopped. Additionally, when a news source intentionally lies to push it's agenda, it should be held accountable. I am not for government censorship. I want real news, not government approved news; not news approved only by one party, like you have on Fox News.
I don't buy that the left wants the right leaning media to go away, they just want them to start telling the truth.
I didn't think you could give me one example of FOX making up lies.

You wind bag. Go blow. Stop running your mouth.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

9 Users are viewing the Barack Obama Forum right now

Search the Barack Obama Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Jindal says rebellion brewing against Washington 3 min Cat74 601
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 7 min Posiprompter 243,708
Republicans Believe Obama Will Stop Deportation... 9 min truth-facts 57
Obama seeks $3.7 billion in immigration funds 24 min truth-facts 193
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 25 min LRS 174,505
UN rights expert accuses Israel of 'ethnic clea... 30 min barefoot2626 546
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 33 min woodtick57 1,078,917
•••
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••