# The Hatred Against Obama. Is it warranted?



## Magnificent Bastard (Sep 22, 2010)

I just read this article and it raised some good points on how Obama is receiving criticism disproportional to the extent of his presidential powers.

The demonizing of Barack Obama - The Washington Post

I chalk the hate up to different groups with different interests seeing the president as an obstacle to their goals. 

Your thoughts?


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

I don't think it matters.


----------



## knittigan (Sep 2, 2011)

What, you mean to say that there are some people who are consciously and unconsciously discriminating against the only president in US history who hasn't been an old, wealthy, "Christian", heterosexual, cis, white man? Say no more.

Of course it's unwarranted. The fact is that consciously or unconsciously (in this case, consciously) a lot of people in this part of the Western world (although I suspect it extends to others), people in power included, believe that you must have all of the qualities I listed above in order to be respected as a capable leader. To a very real degree, people still doubt that a black man is as capable of filling the role of POTUS as well as a white man can and those doubts are manifesting themselves here on an inattention to any characteristics that are actually relevant to his leadership abilities. It's a classic tactic for undermining someone in a position of authority.

Look at the way that mainstream media presented Hillary Clinton as some nagging, unnatural, monstrous old harpy on perma-PMS. They cracked highly sexualised jokes about her make-up, her clothes, her hormones, all on national television and barely anyone batted an eye. Do you really think that they would have discussed any other (male) presidential candidate in such a blatantly disrespectful way? Of course not. (Well, not unless that man happens to be black and there was actually a lot of this going on during Obama's campaign as well). So as far as I'm concerned, it's not particularly surprising that they're essentially doing the same thing to Obama, especially considering that contemporary US society remains highly, highly racialised.

But an interesting read nonetheless.

Edit: there's somewhat of a disconnect between your link and the question you posed here. I was responding to the former rather than the latter.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

I feel like at least part of the criticism he's received has been the natural backlash from the political zeal that got him elected.

The pendulum swung WAY too far from center in support of him in 2008, heralding him almost as some sort of minor deity. When he failed to deliver as promised, the crowd mentality swung back in the other direction to balance things out. He couldn't possibly achieve what the people thought he should, and so he's been paying the price of disappointing them.

(And then, of course, there are any actual mistakes he's made while in office / lack of headway with the economy, etc.)


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

This criticism of Obama is definitely warranted. Every politician makes promises, but I don't think a president in recent history has promised as much as Obama and delivered so little. Obama was elected, in part, because he claimed that he would bring change to the way government is run in the US. Turns out, it's just business as usual; he made sure the car companies got a hefty dose of tax-payer money while signing into law a bill that would permit the indefinite detention of US citizens. At the same time, the budget is pulling in a record-breaking deficit. Now, I'm not a Democrat, but I know quite a few Democrats who are pissed at Obama over all of this. The moral of the story is that the more you promise, the harder people will be on you if you don't deliver.

Edit: Jennywocky ninja'ed what I was saying


----------



## Borrowed Lunacy (Sep 30, 2011)

Not his fault banks held the economy at hostage. Not his fault that his predecessor started an unjust war in Iraq and the fallout of that reached the Afghanistan campaign. Not his fault that the Republicans have such power in the Congress.

But then again, he sort of did promise the world. I'm just saying, the man wasn't given the reign he needed to fufill his promises.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

Well, it certainly did leave him very vulnerable.

It's just amazing that it looks like the 'pubs might totally blow this opportunity anyway because they can't get their act together. How much easier could Obama have made it for them? 

Then again, the Dems failed to capitalize in 2004...



timeless said:


> Edit: Jennywocky ninja'ed what I was saying


bwa ha ha ha *slips back into the shadows, biding her time


----------



## NeedsNewNameNow (Dec 1, 2009)

This has been the trend in our politics. It's not just Obama, but every recent president.
aka "Obama Derangement Syndrome", "Bush Derangement Syndrome", etc.. Where otherwise rational people fly off the handle at the mere mention of the president-in-question's name


----------



## Staffan (Nov 15, 2011)

There is probably some racism in the hatred against Obama, but there also seems to be an inverted racism by his followers. Like everything was supposed to change for the better just because they elect a black president. After all, he didn't present any new political ideas. It's almost like they believe black people have magical powers.


----------



## Perhaps (Aug 20, 2011)

@knittigan and @Jennywocky have pretty much covered my thoughts on the matter.



NeedsNewNameNow said:


> This has been the trend in our politics. It's not just Obama, but every recent president.
> aka "Obama Derangement Syndrome", "Bush Derangement Syndrome", etc.. Where otherwise rational people fly off the handle at the mere mention of the president-in-question's name


I think that because a lot of "landmine" issues (social justice, religious, and so on) intersect so neatly in the political arena, this is one of those things that you can't expect people to discuss rationally. Obama himself has become a bit of a phenomenon in the United States; I don't know of many people who are ambivalent towards him. It's either some bizarre deification or obsessive demonization with very, very limited middle ground. It's quite disturbing.



Staffan said:


> There is probably some racism in the hatred against Obama, but there also seems to be an inverted racism by his followers. Like everything was supposed to change for the better just because they elect a black president. After all, he didn't present any new political ideas. It's almost like they believe black people have magical powers.


It's not even "inverted."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

Action Potential said:


> I think that because a lot of "landmine" issues (social justice, religious, and so on) intersect so neatly in the political arena, this is one of those things that you can't expect people to discuss rationally. Obama himself has become a bit of a phenomenon in the United States; I don't know of many people who are ambivalent towards him. It's either some bizarre deification or obsessive demonization with very, very limited middle ground. It's quite disturbing.


I wonder, though, how long this has been going on.

I'm Generation X, so I remember decently the Reagan years, and how older Americans seemed to venerate the guy.

When Clinton came into office after 12 years of Republican rule, the Republicans were almost frothing at the mouth in the area I lived in -- nothing Clinton did was right (he was evil) and so was that control-freak Hilary. It was just crazy. Then Bush came into office and things were again reversed -- total veneration vs total dismissal.

I'm wondering how much of this is really even recent, it seems to be a perpetual issue in a two-party polarized system.


----------



## NeedsNewNameNow (Dec 1, 2009)

Staffan said:


> There is probably some racism in the hatred against Obama, but there also seems to be an inverted racism by his followers. Like everything was supposed to change for the better just because they elect a black president. After all, he didn't present any new political ideas. It's almost like they believe black people have magical powers.


White guilt. As if doing this erases the guilt of slavery/segregation that many experience. It won't, but I believe it's a powerful motivator for some people.


----------



## NeedsNewNameNow (Dec 1, 2009)

Jennywocky said:


> I wonder, though, how long this has been going on.
> 
> I'm Generation X, so I remember decently the Reagan years, and how older Americans seemed to venerate the guy.
> 
> ...


It has always gone on to an extent. But since the 1980s there have been an increasing number of outlets for demagogues to stir people into a frenzy. Talk radio on the right, films by people like Michael Moore on the left, and blogs, online forums, social media, etc etc.. 
I remember alot of people disliked Carter. Some really disliked Reagan. Few seemed to like the first Bush, but then it seemed to change into extreme hatred with Clinton, W Bush, and Obama.


----------



## Perhaps (Aug 20, 2011)

Jennywocky said:


> I wonder, though, how long this has been going on.
> 
> I'm Generation X, so I remember decently the Reagan years, and how older Americans seemed to venerate the guy.
> 
> ...


I'm generation Y, so I only know what people tell me about the Reagan years, and all of that sounds eerily similar. It's actually very interesting, and I think you may be onto something; the two party system almost encourages this nonsense, even though republicans and democrats, at their core, really aren't all that different. But it's a matter of perceived ideology and not the _reality_ of the situation that people seem to get hung up on, and what politicians themselves are selling. 

It's possible that this has always been a factor, in some way or another, but I'm not sure how one would go about finding that out.


----------



## NeedsNewNameNow (Dec 1, 2009)

Action Potential said:


> I'm generation Y, so I only know what people tell me about the Reagan years, and all of that sounds eerily similar. It's actually very interesting, and I think you may be onto something; the two party system almost encourages this nonsense, even though republicans and democrats, at their core, really aren't all that different. But it's a matter of perceived ideology and not the _reality_ of the situation that people seem to get hung up on, and what politicians themselves are selling.


perceived being the key word. Obama and Bush could sign the same bill. And as you probably know, these bills are loaded up with stuff that has little or nothing to do with the purpose of the bill. But the president has to accept all or nothing. So people on the right could find provisions in the bill that they say prove Obama is a Socialist. People on the left could find things in the bill they say prove he wants some kind of fascist police state


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

NeedsNewNameNow said:


> It has always gone on to an extent. But since the 1980s there have been an increasing number of outlets for demagogues to stir people into a frenzy. Talk radio on the right, films by people like Michael Moore on the left, and blogs, online forums, social media, etc etc..


Good point. Connectivity has increased and more people have a voice in social media, and dissenters can much more quickly find each other and consolidate their complaints, and news travels immediately via the 'net today so that every little mistake, outrage, and criticism can immediately find an audience.



> I remember alot of people disliked Carter. Some really disliked Reagan. Few seemed to like the first Bush, but then it seemed to change into extreme hatred with Clinton, W Bush, and Obama.


Yeah, the first Bush was probably the most "negligible" of them all... he just never made much of a splash compared to those who followed or the few who came before, who really generated waves.

I grew up in a Republican household that didn't even discuss politics much, and I remember my parents disliking Carter. I grew up in an anti-democratic household, but once I left home, I was able to get a more balanced perspective; until then, I had been taughts that Democrats were "evil" because they weren't Christians. Funny, huh?


----------



## NeedsNewNameNow (Dec 1, 2009)

Jennywocky said:


> Good point. Connectivity has increased and more people have a voice in social media, and dissenters can much more quickly find each other and consolidate their complaints, and news travels immediately via the 'net today so that every little mistake, outrage, and criticism can immediately find an audience.


Yes! And they form very insular groups where everyone agrees with each other and they don't tolerate dissent well.



> Yeah, the first Bush was probably the most "negligible" of them all... he just never made much of a splash compared to those who followed or the few who came before, who really generated waves.


Yes, not very controversial, but where I lived, you could barely find anyone who liked him in 1992. Mostly because of the economy. I remember he came to my town to give a speech, I worked along the motorcade route. Everybody I worked with was griping about him, that he was coming. But then when the time came, a wave of excitement came over everybody and we all ran out to wave and watch him go by. People are funny! 



> I grew up in a Republican household that didn't even discuss politics much, and I remember my parents disliking Carter. I grew up in an anti-democratic household, but once I left home, I was able to get a more balanced perspective; until then, I had been taughts that Democrats were "evil" because they weren't Christians. Funny, huh?


I grew up in a Democrat household, but yet they had conservative values that would be much more in line with the Republican party. "Republicans were for the rich" I was taught. It just taught me that tradition is often more powerful in determining political alignment than actual views!


----------



## E_N_T_P (Aug 9, 2011)

They also demonized Bush, Clinton, Nixon... even Lincoln, but only Sarah Palin deserved it :tongue:


----------



## MyName (Oct 23, 2009)

We have this conversation with every new president. First everyone said Clinton got the most intense hate of any president (even with being just a little kid at the time I remember how intense it got during the impeachment proceedings. It's never been that bad for Obama, except for maybe right after the health bill) then it was Bush, and now Obama, the hate for him isn't anywhere near as intense for him as it was for Bush, although it might approach it in his second term.


----------



## Dark Romantic (Dec 27, 2011)

When I saw the fervor surrounding Obama right before he was elected, I knew that this was going to happen once he actually got into office. People around me were saying things like "Obama is going to fix the economy!", or "Obama is going to make everything go right from now on!" or "Obama is going to be the best president in history!", and I couldn't help but go:










Now, don't get me wrong; I have nothing against the man, or his presidency as I've seen it (it probably helps that I'm not even American), but everyone was touting him as this American messiah, and I knew there was no way he'd be able to deliver. Sure, I thought he'd be a pretty decent president, all things considered, but not nearly as amazing as people thought he was. So, I remember thinking to myself "in four years' time, if things don't radically improve, they're going to _crucify_ this poor guy"; strangely enough, it's not as bad as I thought it was going to get. I think he's got a pretty good chance of winning the next election, from what I've seen so far, so I don't think people hate him nearly as much as they would if he were actually a bad president.


----------



## AintGotNoExpressions (Aug 29, 2011)

I think most of it starts with his campaign. He mad a lot of lofty promises and when he didn't come through with them everyone was shocked for some reason. Too many of his supporters put all of their faith in him and couldn't fathom why the economy didn't fix itself. He also tried to compromise a lot with republicans in the beginning of his term which probably alienated his base of supporters.

On the Republican side I don't believe that they would have supported him for any reason. If Obama swept in and fixed the country like he promised after the disaster of the Bush administration it could have ensured democratic control of government for a very, very long time. The republican party has also been on a slippery slope to extremism for quite some time, and that would naturally make them clash more with Obama's agenda. The last but not least reason is good old fashioned American racism.


----------



## the3rdpower (Jun 23, 2010)

You cannot please everyone... it's the number one tenat of leadership of any type. 

Is the president responsible for many things? Yes.
Is the president responsible for all things? No


----------



## aef8234 (Feb 18, 2012)

The fact of the matter is, the President has become the blame card.
The fact that he is visually different from other Presidents doesn't help.


----------



## Ngg (Jul 22, 2010)

As Jennywok pointed out, I think there was excessive hype around the promises of his election. There was no way he was going to fix an endemically screwed up system in 4 years. I think the biggest pet peeves people have with Obama is that he is all talk, but shows little courage as a leader. Most of the time, he ends up caving to the demands of conservative advisors or the Republican held Congress.

At the end of the day, the system is bigger than the man. Philip Zimbardo's social studies illustrate that concept quite well.
Democrat or Republican lines are very defined in the public debate, but only give us the semblance of political diversity, since the difference in actual policy between a moderate Democrat President and a moderate Republican President is minimal. Obama couldn't resist the pressure of the lobbies just like he couldn't resist the need for SuperPAC funding. It's all about the money... If we want real change, we need to change the system of political funding (eliminate private funding), and curb the influence of lobbyists, since they by definition overrepresent wealthy and corporate interest groups (banks and large biopharma/agro business).


----------



## Miss Scarlet (Jul 26, 2010)

Criticism is warranted, but not this level of hatred. A lot of things that other politicians say about him like Rick Santorum, is just plain ridiculous. Has America lost all class? I don't want to have a president that got voted in because HE/SHE was better at witty insults. What does that show about what you want to do for the American people? I mean a little effort to hide the fact you're scum would be nice.


----------



## NeedsNewNameNow (Dec 1, 2009)

Ngg said:


> As Jennywok pointed out, I think there was excessive hype around the promises of his election. There was no way he was going to fix an endemically screwed up system in 4 years. I think the biggest pet peeves people have with Obama is that he is all talk, but shows little courage as a leader. Most of the time, he ends up caving to the demands of conservative advisors or the Republican held Congress.
> 
> At the end of the day, the system is bigger than the man. Philip Zimbardo's social studies illustrate that concept quite well.
> Democrat or Republican lines are very defined in the public debate, but only give us the semblance of political diversity, since the difference in actual policy between a moderate Democrat President and a moderate Republican President is minimal. Obama couldn't resist the pressure of the lobbies just like he couldn't resist the need for SuperPAC funding. It's all about the money... If we want real change, we need to change the system of political funding (eliminate private funding), and curb the influence of lobbyists, since they by definition overrepresent wealthy and corporate interest groups (banks and large biopharma/agro business).


You are correct that you cater to the interests of who funds you, I'm not sure that eliminating private funds is the answer, because then your paymaster is the government. I'm not sure you can because it's a free speech issue. Besides, every attempt at reforming campaign finance hasn't worked, money just finds new ways of getting to candidates. They give rise to things like SuperPacs. 

But maybe we should scrap this bizarre primary ritual we have? It drags on a long time. If we got it over with in a week, they wouldn't need to raise so much money in the first place, for one. It would be more democratic for two. Right now a handful of small states determine who the nominee is going to be and nobody else gets a say (This season excepted)


----------



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

Let alone his short-comings in regards to the economy, the guy basically lied his way into the office, I think that's what angers most people.


----------



## Siren (Jun 25, 2011)

Matthew Sloane said:


> Not his fault banks held the economy at hostage. Not his fault that his predecessor started an unjust war in Iraq and the fallout of that reached the Afghanistan campaign. Not his fault that the Republicans have such power in the Congress.
> 
> But then again, he sort of did promise the world. I'm just saying, the man *doesn't have the experience* he needed to fufill his promises.


Fixed it for you.

And before anyone calls racism:


----------



## Donkey D Kong (Feb 14, 2011)

While I disagree with Obama on many things, he DID try to fix Bush's mess. However, he was only given 2 years before the republican party stepped in and stopped him from doing anything. With the republicans stopping the democrats from doing anything and vice versa, the US has politically become stagnant.

In conclusion, I don't think Obama deserves all of the hate he's getting, but I wouldn't exactly say that he's a model president either.


----------



## Boxter9 (Dec 30, 2011)

When Obama was elected three and a half years ago I didn't really care much about whether he'd actually fix the economy. All I knew was that the man radiated with inspiration, which has made me politically active and extremely likely to vote, which are two things largely unheard of in young people prior to Obama's campaign. He excited me and other teenagers _even though we were nowhere close to being eighteen._ This isn't a factor that should go unheeded, as it's one of the best things you can do for democratic government. It is however, getting totally fucked up by the current GOP race. Those guys make me want to stay as far away from Washington D.C. as humanly possible.

Am I a bit disappointed in Barack Obama's performance? Yes. Is he still a role model for me today? Yes. Am I likely to cast my ballot in his favor come November? Yes. Is that mostly because he's the best of the available evils? ... Yes. 

I have no problem with criticizing the Executive Branch. I think it's necessary. What I have a problem with is the abject lack of respect that some people have for a man who clearly has the best intentions for the American people. It's uncivilized, it's immature, and as a Christian who isn't actually interested in grinding everybody left of far-right to pieces in my woodshed, it's embarrassing, and I resent the negative stereotypes that so many of them reinforce.


----------



## NeedsNewNameNow (Dec 1, 2009)

Boxter9 said:


> When Obama was elected three and a half years ago I didn't really care much about whether he'd actually fix the economy. All I knew was that the man radiated with inspiration, which has made me politically active and extremely likely to vote, which are two things largely unheard of in young people prior to Obama's campaign. He excited me and other teenagers _even though we were nowhere close to being eighteen._ This isn't a factor that should go unheeded, as it's one of the best things you can do for democratic government. It is however, getting totally fucked up by the current GOP race. Those guys make me want to stay as far away from Washington D.C. as humanly possible.


I fail to see why this is a good thing. we aren't electing a Messiah. this is what scared me about Obama's campaign. so many people didn't know or care what he would actually do, but he could give a good speech and he was for "hope and change", whatever that meant. i never thought id vote for Hillary, but i did


----------



## Boxter9 (Dec 30, 2011)

NeedsNewNameNow said:


> I fail to see why this is a good thing. we aren't electing a Messiah. this is what scared me about Obama's campaign. so many people didn't know or care what he would actually do, but he could give a good speech and he was for "hope and change", whatever that meant. i never thought id vote for Hillary, but i did


I wish people would stop saying that Obama fans believe he's the Messiah. We don't. Also, I still fail to see why activating an abysmally dormant part of the American public is a _bad_ thing, even if many of them vote for "the wrong reasons." That's democracy. You don't get to choose what the right reasons are for anyone but yourself, and not everyone is going to care primarily about pragmatism (though most people on this thread will). The public not voting, and not paying attention to what their elected officials are doing, is far scarier to me than the public getting another demagogue into the White House.


----------



## NeedsNewNameNow (Dec 1, 2009)

Boxter9 said:


> I wish people would stop saying that Obama fans believe he's the Messiah. We don't. Also, I still fail to see why activating an abysmally dormant part of the American public is a _bad_ thing, even if many of them vote for "the wrong reasons." That's democracy. You don't get to choose what the right reasons are for anyone but yourself, and not everyone is going to care primarily about pragmatism (though most people on this thread will). The public not voting, and not paying attention to what their elected officials are doing, is far scarier to me than the public getting another demagogue into the White House.


Except all those people don't pay attention anyway. They can't articulate the difference between a Republican and Democrat, know much about what the Constitution says, or know the difference between it and the Declaration of Independence or maybe even the Magna Carta. They can't name many current office holders or even what position they hold or what they do. They are apathetic about politics, but when Election day comes around, we guilt these people into getting out and voting. Pick whoever sounds the best, had the nicest hair, whatever. Then go back to not paying attention. And they have short memories (Support for Iran war? They've forgotten Iraq!) 

Everybody complains about how politicians lie, talk out of both sides of the mouth , dodge questions, campaign negatively and get into office and do the opposite of what they promised. Politicians are this way precisely because these strategies work on an uninformed electorate! 

I'm not saying take away anybodies voting rights, but a good first step would be to stop encouraging the apathetic voters that it's their duty to vote. They can show up if they want to. But if they want to stay home, they excercised their right too


----------



## n2freedom (Jun 2, 2011)

Many of the posts in this thread and the "criticisms" of mainstream media of President Obama reminds me of this quote by Theodore Roosevelt:
"“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” 

I have said this in another one of these political manifesto threads.....the common denominator is congress... no president gets to do whatever he wants without congress. If you want change, then here is a novel idea....elect a new congress. I find it laughable when I review some of the voting records of some of these senators and house of representatives as it speaks to where their interest lies and unfortunately in many cases it is not with the masses.

I don't have much to say one way or another because where do you draw the line for the fumbles that belong to President Obama and the fumbles that belong to congress and inherited problems? I put more blame at congress's door because they have basically been the common denominator between the last two administrations as the average length (mind you this is the "average") of service in the House at the beginning of the Congress was about 10 years (5.1 terms); in the Senate, 12.8 years (slightly over two terms).

I also find it laughable how many people deny their racial biases although it is glaring by what and how they post on threads related to race issues. One thing I can say is this ... the political powers that be know how widespread racial biases are and how predominant it still is in the American culture and they bank on it with each and every election and the sheeple go to the polls and vote on sensationalism than the issues time and time again.

It is my hope that this year the sheeple will be independent thinkers, do the research on the candidates, and actually go to the polls and vote on the *real* issues.


----------



## Siren (Jun 25, 2011)

I don't know if anyone has said this yet but one of the biggest problems in our 2 party system is that the leaders of each party select candidates based on how electable they are, not how good of a leader they will be. POTUS is a puppet, if he wants to be re-elected. It's all about maintaining control and that is just not in our best interest.


----------



## adizzy (Aug 6, 2011)

Jennywocky said:


> I feel like at least part of the criticism he's received has been the natural backlash from the political zeal that got him elected.
> 
> The pendulum swung WAY too far from center in support of him in 2008, heralding him almost as some sort of minor deity. When he failed to deliver as promised, the crowd mentality swung back in the other direction to balance things out. He couldn't possibly achieve what the people thought he should, and so he's been paying the price of disappointing them.
> 
> (And then, of course, there are any actual mistakes he's made while in office / lack of headway with the economy, etc.)


 
ahh Sanity beautiful beautiful sanity


----------



## adizzy (Aug 6, 2011)

Magnificent Bastard said:


> I just read this article and it raised some good points on how Obama is receiving criticism disproportional to the extent of his presidential powers.
> 
> The demonizing of Barack Obama - The Washington Post
> 
> ...


Well consider the source. The Washington Post is openly left. Considering I don't agree with anything that he does, you can say I am openly right.


----------



## adizzy (Aug 6, 2011)

NeedsNewNameNow said:


> perceived being the key word. Obama and Bush could sign the same bill. And as you probably know, these bills are loaded up with stuff that has little or nothing to do with the purpose of the bill. But the president has to accept all or nothing. So people on the right could find provisions in the bill that they say prove Obama is a Socialist. People on the left could find things in the bill they say prove he wants some kind of fascist police state


I agree with your general point, but considereing theyconcentrated/concentrate on social issues that are at the opposite end of the spectrum, I would disagree with the specific, but point well taken.


----------



## Magnificent Bastard (Sep 22, 2010)

What baffles me is why Obama is ignoring the debt. Or is the debt not really a problem?


----------



## HippoHunter94 (Jan 19, 2012)

No. He's trying to do his job, even if he sucks at it. 

It's not like the previous administration, who should be put behind bars.


----------

