What is your view of Obama?

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="DaBrainz"]

The point is (and I'm pretty sure that I've argued with you on this topic before), that the Democrats andsupporters are just as prone to what you call "ridiculous rhetoric". And to somehow equate anti-intellectualism with only republicans is anti-intellectual in itself. Sinceanti-intellectualism remains somewhat constant across all boundaries then there is no movement.

Both Bush and Obamarepresentthe most liberal movement since the LBJ days. That's whyitsveryillogical torepresent Bushas a pillar of anti-intellectualism without saying the same thing about Obama.

DaBrainz

Here is the problem. Republicans are notorius for talking about how they support fiscal conservatism but the fact is the government grows everytime they have power. Your also confusing things that he said with things he actually did.

Like with the bailouts he basically said that businesses should be allowed to fail, but I'll make an exception this one time.:? I could list a bunch of other examples but I think you could easily google those. Its safe to say that Bush and most of the republicans fell out of favor with the fiscal conservatives long ago.

The bailouts are a perfect example of this. All Bush really did was save the asses of his banker friends. A lot of liberals wanted to nationalize the banks, not hand blank checks to these CEO's who drove their companies into the ground.

Obama appeared on the front cover of his church magazine with Louis Farrakhan, who calls Jews "gutter people" . . Obama calls Farrakhan a "great man". . . .

Obama was a 20 year member of a White hating/Jew hating church (Trinity), that donates money to the Nation Of Islam, a racist hate group. . .

Obama called his own grandmother a "typical white person", implying that all white people are "fearful" . . . . . . . .

Obama raised his children in a church that teaches that Whites invented AIDS, in order to kill Blacks. . . . .

The excuse of, "he won , let's move on", doesn't cut it, and it doesn't change the facts. . .

Obama is a racist., and an embarrassment to this country .

'

I don't think Obama is a racist. I don't hold anything against him in that regard. He had some bad associations in the past, but I'm not going to focus on that. I think that's going overboard.

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]My view is pretty much the same as it was before. I still have absolutely no regrets for voting for him. As for how he's doing so far - he's been doing okay, although I'm very worried about what's going on in South Asia with Afghanistan and our alienation of India vis-a-vis Afghanistan's future. sonicare

That has also been worrying me as well. However, I'm not surprized most Americans do not know about the whole Kashmir dispute. I am not one to generalize often, but the ignorance, arrogance, naivete, and idiocity I have witnessed in this country is astounding. There are idiots everywhere though :(

I am not calling all Americans idiots, ignorant, etc, for all nations have their fair share of bad people. Americans also don't have to know every detail of foreign policy, but at least knowing that India and Pakistan hate each other should be basic knowledge. Especially when your government's support of one side during the middle of a war could hurt our effort and relations with India. I did not mean to offend any one here as I am an American who also loves my country as well. The issues of Juarez, Mexico while bad, do not endanger the entire world like India and Pakistan btw :P.

An ignorance of history will destroy our civilization. I justdon't want to see that happen :D.

The US government is, however, quite aware of that conflict.sonicare

[QUOTE="sonicare"] The US government is, however, quite aware of that conflict.-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="DaBrainz"]

Oh don't start with that error america anti-intellectual movement BS. Bush's policies are a stones throw from Obama's. And please stop the Sarah Palin straw man. Last time I checked she wasn't currently in office or is currently running for office.

DaBrainz

... You wouldn't say "They hate us for our freedoms!", "We have to fight them over there, so they don't come over here!" as not anti-intellectual? Yes indeed Palin is not in office which is fortunate indeed, that doesn't stop her from being the most popular figure within the Republican party... I would tend to agree if it were not for the fact that these figures were massively popular and consistently depend on such ridiculous rhetoric.. which I do agree Obama's security policy is too close to Bush's but unfortunately if he were change this at all, such as leaving Iraq and Afghanistan, the republicans would call him a coward and traitor.. The fact that a large % think he feels pitty for the terrorists, or isn't even a natural born american is proof of this.. This may not be the case for a large % but that is their fault as well, they have led the party to getting hijacked by a social conservative evangelical movement.

The point is (and I'm pretty sure that I've argued with you on this topic before), that the Democrats and supporters are just as prone to what you call "ridiculous rhetoric". And to somehow equate anti-intellectualism with only republicans is anti-intellectual in itself. Since anti-intellectualism remains somewhat constant across all boundaries then there is no movement.

Both Bush and Obama represent the most liberal movement since the LBJ days. That's whyi ts very illogical to represent Bush as a pillar of anti-intellectualism without saying the same thing about Obama.

Edit:Gamespottookthespacesoutandiputthembackin,

I agree SOME what.. The problem is this.. Liberals have not been hijacked by a radical minority in which they will scream at the president in the middle of speeches saying he is a liar, will use rhetoric that he is a socialist (when clearly he is not), suggest that the healthcare reform will create death panels.. This isn't some minority that barely gets coverage, it is constantly covered as a main talking point.... Furthermore anti-intellectual does not mean liberal.. I don't know where you got that idea, the point being Obama's talking point doesn't get based on ignorant propaganda "Mission accomplished!" on the flight carrier.. He doesn't call Iran, North Korea, etc etc the Axis of Evil.. He is one of the few people to acknowledge that the United States has fair share of the blame with the state of the Middle East for the past 60 years.. He has shown to be humble to the point of taking diplomacy internationally.. Bush was the exact opposite of neo conservative agenda in which there was only one perspective, his.. And any one outside of that were either labeled cowards, traitors etc etc.. And yet again Obama has yet to use a single shred of the propaganda that was over stretched or completely wrong, but it sounded good.. Furthermore Obama has made shown no desire in some how taking over businesses, the point being is the system is broken.. Business models for banks CAN NOT be based on every one for them selves, but the Nash Equilibrium, doing the things in your interest as well as every one else.. When that hasn't been the case.. Furthermore yet again I have yet to see a single fiscal conservative ever criticize the military, something that is completely unncessary in the 21st century of being that size.. Now this is not suggesting all Republicans are like that, the Bush adminstration just represents the neo conservative core which is often times highly religious that has taken over the party.. There are plenty of intelligent and realist republicans in office unfortunately they are drowned out.. Furthermore Republicans are far more cut throat to their own party, where there are more conservative democrats in congress then there are liberal republicans..

[QUOTE="sonicare"] The US government is, however, quite aware of that conflict.-Sun_Tzu-

... If anything imo it made it worse.. The main reason why the Taliban has been allowed to flourish is because countries like Pakistan and India are in a modern day Cold War where the majority of their military is parked at the border between the two countries..

[QUOTE="sonicare"] The US government is, however, quite aware of that conflict.-Sun_Tzu-

Obama appeared on the front cover of his church magazine with Louis Farrakhan, who calls Jews "gutter people" . . Obama calls Farrakhan a "great man". . . .

Obama was a 20 year member of a White hating/Jew hating church (Trinity), that donates money to the Nation Of Islam, a racist hate group. . .

Obama called his own grandmother a "typical white person", implying that all white people are "fearful" . . . . . . . .

Obama raised his children in a church that teaches that Whites invented AIDS, in order to kill Blacks. . . . .

The excuse of, "he won , let's move on", doesn't cut it, and it doesn't change the facts. . .

Obama is a racist., and an embarrassment to this country .

'

Born_Lucky

Well luck is not with you because I just so happen to go to that Church.

First of all, Louis Farrakhan called ZIONISM a gutter religion. And many people really dont like Zionism at all. It is an elitist group who wants to do away with muslims. Obama distanced himself from a man who started the million man march over false pretences and for political gain.

Thousands of white people every year visit this "white hating church" that you were referring to.

And the Nation of Islam is not a "racist hate group". Just because you oppose some of the Zionisist moves do not mean you oppose Judaism.

First of all, Rev Wright said that he wouldnt be surprised after the "Tuskeegee Experiment" (reaserch it),he wouldnt be surprised if THE GOVERNMENT created aids. This was a BIG rumor during the time he said it, so stop acting like it was a white vs black thing.

The only reason why Obama distanced himself from Rev Wright is because of people who do not look at things in context and only want to think what they want to think.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="sonicare"] The US government is, however, quite aware of that conflict.On3ShotOneKill

Now of course there are a lot of differences between Afghanistan and Iraq, and just because we were able to salvage the situation in Iraq for the time being, that doesn't mean that we will be able to do the same in Afghanistan. But the possibility for victory in Afghanistan is still there - the question is how long are we going to commit ourselves to Afghanistan.

My view of him is unchanged. I wish other people would get a grip on reality for their expectations of what any president can do within 1 year of office...That's a view of mine that has definitely changed.spazzx625

Agreed! Every commentator on Fox News is under the impression that if a republican had been elected, all of the countries problems would have been solved by now. I don't care who is in office, you need time to fix things. This country was in a real mess when Obama was elected, and there is no quick fix. The non-stop Obama bashing is ridiculous.

I didn't like either candidate in the '08 presidential election. It staggers me how poorly both parties picked their candidates in the primaries, but I was resigned to the fact that no Republican could possibly have won (truthfully, the Dems could have run a quadraplegic, brain-damaged monkey with 4 months to live against the Second Coming of Ronald Reagan and won).

Obama was a paper candidate: no real national-level credentials to speak of, but no real baggage, either. I don't see anything in his presidency thus far to prove my perceptions wrong: he may be charismatic, but he has no leadership skills (if he did, he'd have found a way to get bi-partisan support for the ill-fated health-care reforms he's been ignoring everything else in favor of).

Blame whoever you want for the failures, Dems or the GOP (hint: it's both...), but the blame ultimately lies at Obama's feet for not stepping up and stopping the back-biting.

I agree with you Sun Tzu. A few years ago, I thought the situation in Iraq was almost hopeless. However today, the security and infrastructure are much improved in Iraq. I have a few friends in the military and they gave me some interesting insights into how things are in Iraq. Basically, the Iraqi police are quite corrupt and almost like the mafia here - organized crime. However, the Iraqi army is quite adept and may soon be ready to handle the security of the nation. Most of the guys I know over there are confident in the Iraqi army.

The main reason why the Taliban has been allowed to flourish is because countries like Pakistan and India are in a modern day Cold War where the majority of their military is parked at the border between the two countries..

sSubZerOo

When the Taliban fell, all the goods that flowed into Afghanistan were Indian. India has given Afghanistan a ton of aid when it comes to the construction of schools and infrastructure. Pakistan would have to make a choice, align itself with an American/Indian alliance or the Taliban/Al Qaeda one.

I didn't like either candidate in the '08 presidential election. It staggers me how poorly both parties picked their candidates in the primaries, but I was resigned to the fact that no Republican could possibly have won (truthfully, the Dems could have run a quadraplegic, brain-damaged monkey with 4 months to live against the Second Coming of Ronald Reagan and won).

Obama was a paper candidate: no real national-level credentials to speak of, but no real baggage, either. I don't see anything in his presidency thus far to prove my perceptions wrong: he may be charismatic, but he has no leadership skills (if he did, he'd have found a way to get bi-partisan support for the ill-fated health-care reforms he's been ignoring everything else in favor of).

Blame whoever you want for the failures, Dems or the GOP (hint: it's both...), but the blame ultimately lies at Obama's feet for not stepping up and stopping the back-biting.

OrkHammer007

Not defending Obama, but how>? When you have a party suggesting that there will be death panels.. A large % not even thinking he is a natural born citizen thus a illegitimate president, that he is a socialist, and that congress reps are willing to interupt the president during speech calling him a liar.. This isn't some disgruntled Iraqi reporter throwing shoes at him, this is a elected official in United States congress!.. There is a SPECIFIC movement that opened up from the get go specifically to undermine Obama known as the Tea Party.. Furthermore many of the DINO's are nearly as conservative as the Republicans in office! We havn't seen such a split government in decades, filibustering is one of the highest figures in history for this year.. How can you expect to get any bipartisan support when you have the opposite party saying "Healthcare is perfectly fine the way it is" or numerous other things?

If anything this is the fault of the democrat leaders before 2008 where they basically bent over for the Republicans with their ultra nationalist rhetoric.. This is a pretty good repsentation of that.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RsMLkBuFdI... Where avoiding being called cowards or traitors was far better then going after the adminstration..

I like him and a lot of the decisions he's making, but he's kind of dropping the ball here. He's not doing a bad job by any means, but he isn't stepping up and uniting the country behind him like any great leader has to do. Still, I have a lot of respect for him even if he's having trouble getting support for some of his initiatives.

I think he is working hard and pushing everyone in congress to do the same. Also I appreciate that he is okay with only serving one term if he gets a bunch of important things done.

I didn't like either candidate in the '08 presidential election. It staggers me how poorly both parties picked their candidates in the primaries, but I was resigned to the fact that no Republican could possibly have won (truthfully, the Dems could have run a quadraplegic, brain-damaged monkey with 4 months to live against the Second Coming of Ronald Reagan and won).

Obama was a paper candidate: no real national-level credentials to speak of, but no real baggage, either. I don't see anything in his presidency thus far to prove my perceptions wrong: he may be charismatic, but he has no leadership skills (if he did, he'd have found a way to get bi-partisan support for the ill-fated health-care reforms he's been ignoring everything else in favor of).

Blame whoever you want for the failures, Dems or the GOP (hint: it's both...), but the blame ultimately lies at Obama's feet for not stepping up and stopping the back-biting.

I think he's done a terrible job so far.

[QUOTE="bigfootstew"]

Chimpy turned this country into a dumpster in just eight years. We now have two disastrous foreign wars and the greatest economic disaster since the great depression thanks to him. We can't survive having another ape in office.

Palin flunked out of college several times and was so dumb in her interview with Couric that she made Couric seem like a genius by comparison, and Couric is a total bimbo airhead herself.

Palin is trash. Whatever happened to electing our best and brightest?

collegeboy64

Our country is not a dumpster. Its still the greatest, most free nation on earth. We are in a downturn right now, but it will come back. It always does. We survived Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter, we'll survive Bush and Obama.

As for electing our best and brightest. Hasn't ever been the case. We tend to elect the best looking and most telegenic.

So, what will it take to get you on a plane out of here? I got my tax return back and I'm feeling financially flush right now. We won't even try to take up a collection. I'm offering to buy you a one way ticket to any other country in return for your signing a document renouncing your citizenship and pledging, under risk of civil penalty, to NEVER return.

Man up or shut up.

See now why do you say that? I live in Ireland and I really can't see how Americans are any more free than anyone from Western Europe.

at first i thought he would be a decent president, nothing special, although i did still support Mccain. now i just think hes ineffective. the only thing keeping his approval raiting better then bush is his charismatic nature

I like him and a lot of the decisions he's making, but he's kind of dropping the ball here. He's not doing a bad job by any means, but he isn't stepping up and uniting the country behind him like any great leader has to do. Still, I have a lot of respect for him even if he's having trouble getting support for some of his initiatives.

HomicidalCherry

Its hard to do that when a significant % of the population think he isn't a natural born citizen, socialist and many other things.. Just how the hell can one do that with ridiculous movements like the Tea Party exist, a movement that doesn't even have the correct facts.. I posted earlier that the founder of the first convention for the party couldn't answer a very basic question that should be easy to answer for some one who created a party against government spending.. But they are hypocritical, they have proven to be the typical neo conservative movement.. big business, low taxes, small government, but they want a absurdly large and expensive military.. Even with that in mind, Obama has gotten far more international support then the last president ever got in a very short time.. We just have a flush of extreme neo conservatives that have no desire to cooperate what so ever, to the point that they think the last election was a absolute fraud..

Obama appeared on the front cover of his church magazine with Louis Farrakhan, who calls Jews "gutter people" . . Obama calls Farrakhan a "great man". . . .

Obama was a 20 year member of a White hating/Jew hating church (Trinity), that donates money to the Nation Of Islam, a racist hate group. . .

Obama called his own grandmother a "typical white person", implying that all white people are "fearful" . . . . . . . .

Obama raised his children in a church that teaches that Whites invented AIDS, in order to kill Blacks. . . . .

The excuse of, "he won , let's move on", doesn't cut it, and it doesn't change the facts. . .

Obama is a racist., and an embarrassment to this country .

'

Born_Lucky

Well luck is not with you because I just so happen to go to that Church.

First of all, Louis Farrakhan called ZIONISM a gutter religion. And many people really dont like Zionism at all. It is an elitist group who wants to do away with muslims. Obama distanced himself from a man who started the million man march over false pretences and for political gain.

Thousands of white people every year visit this "white hating church" that you were referring to. And the Nation of Islam is not a "racist hate group". Just because you oppose some of the Zionisist moves do not mean you oppose Judaism.

First of all, Rev Wright said that he wouldnt be surprised after the "Tuskeegee Experiment" (reaserch it),he wouldnt be surprised if THE GOVERNMENT created aids. This was a BIG rumor during the time he said it, so stop acting like it was a white vs black thing.

The only reason why Obama distanced himself from Rev Wright is because of people who do not look at things in context and only want to think what they want to think.

[QUOTE="HomicidalCherry"]

I like him and a lot of the decisions he's making, but he's kind of dropping the ball here. He's not doing a bad job by any means, but he isn't stepping up and uniting the country behind him like any great leader has to do. Still, I have a lot of respect for him even if he's having trouble getting support for some of his initiatives.

sSubZerOo

Its hard to do that when a significant % of the population think he isn't a natural born citizen, socialist and many other things.. Just how the hell can one do that with ridiculous movements like the Tea Party exist, a movement that doesn't even have the correct facts.. I posted earlier that the founder of the first convention for the party couldn't answer a very basic question that should be easy to answer for some one who created a party against government spending.. But they are hypocritical, they have proven to be the typical neo conservative movement.. big business, low taxes, small government, but they want a absurdly large and expensive military.. Even with that in mind, Obama has gotten far more international support then the last president ever got in a very short time.. We just have a flush of extreme neo conservatives that have no desire to cooperate what so ever, to the point that they think the last election was a absolute fraud..

[QUOTE="DaBrainz"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] How did Bush represent any sort of liberal movement? He was anti-union, very pro-business, made the income tax much more regressive, supported a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, and he tried to privatize social security. -Sun_Tzu-

Here is the problem. Republicans are notorius for talking about how they support fiscal conservatism but the fact is the government grows everytime they have power. Your also confusing things that he said with things he actually did.

Like with the bailouts he basically said that businesses should be allowed to fail, but I'll make an exception this one time.:? I could list a bunch of other examples but I think you could easily google those. Its safe to say that Bush and most of the republicans fell out of favor with the fiscal conservatives long ago.

The bailouts are a perfect example of this. All Bush really did was save the asses of his banker friends. A lot of liberals wanted to nationalize the banks, not hand blank checks to these CEO's who drove their companies into the ground.

Good point, but I stand bymy original point. Your just analyzing motives.The actions and results are the same.

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] I really hope they know what they are doing, because one of the best things Bush did while in office was improve relations with India. Any victory in Afghanistan would be meaningless without an Indian partner, because eventually the U.S. is going to leave Afghanistan, and that's the greatest weapon that the Taliban has - to say to the local Afghans that they are always going to be around while the Americans aren't. But that won't be the case with India as a strong ally. And yet you have General McChrystal saying that an increasing Indian influence would be a bad thing. That worries me. -Sun_Tzu-

Now of course there are a lot of differences between Afghanistan and Iraq, and just because we were able to salvage the situation in Iraq for the time being, that doesn't mean that we will be able to do the same in Afghanistan. But the possibility for victory in Afghanistan is still there - the question is how long are we going to commit ourselves to Afghanistan.

Do you honestly believe(Not you personally, the reader :P) we will stay long enough or spend money long enough to build up a nation without an infrastructure? We cannot afford to spend the amount of money required nor the amount of time. Maybe even more importantly, the American people cannot affford to wait that long. Iraq combat wise was a hell hole. However, the country actually had a running water system, electricity, a sewage system, and roadways, even though it was a poor country. Therefore, it was far easier to build upon and maintain Iraqi public anger. Iraq's future is still very much in question but the only similarity with A-stan is that they are both arid countries.

We could have beaten the Taliban / Jihadists back in 2001-2002, but the Bush Admin screwed up big time. Now, we are trying to use a "surge" of 30,000 troops in country 2x larger than Iraq while also having much more difficult terrain? 100,000 men and women is far too few a number.The Soviets had 110,000 soldiers in the country for 10 years, and they bankrupted themselves.

What the hell are we doing? We could have broken our enemy years ago (IDK what we would have done about the country itself) but now the war is lost. Both staying and leaving will be disaterous for many reasons, but we need to save lives / resources and get the hell out.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

I'm somewhat conservative so I have big differences of opinion with him on a lot of issues. I think he's done OK, but I think he's not shown good leadership to date.

I agree with withdrawing our troops from Iraq and I think we will be able to do that on a timeline. I commend him for pushing that issue. I like his stance on world relations, but I think he's finding out that you can't be everyone's friend. Sometimes, you have to act in your nation's best interest and not try to "just look good".

I agree with the need for health reform, but I think he's done a lousy job on it. He didn't sell it very well to the public or to congress for that matter. The dems had the white house, the house of rep and a super majority in the senate - and nothing got done. I think what he needed to do was formulate a plan and then articulate that to the people. He should have hammered the points of escalating costs and the fact that health care is on tract to become unaffordable to almost any working person.

I'm not huge on a lot of the stimulus spending. The economy is cyclical and will recover regardless of his actions. Making sure the financial system didn't collapse was a good move, but that was just as much congress and Bush as it was Obama via TARP. Bush, jr. certainly expanded the deficit, but Obama is on pace to add almost 10 trillion to it. That's outrageous and I think our government as a whole needs to show better responsibility.

I don't like how he plays class warfare. He seems to target successful people and paints them as some kind of villain. Just playing populist politics and I would have hoped a president would have been above that kind of grade school tactic.

sonicare

Well that's not actually true by any measures. The Senate passed a healthcare bill, as did the House, and they were within weeks of reconciling the bills and passing that final bill when Scott Brown pulled an upset in Massachussets.

That's not true. "Nothing got done" implies exactly what it suggests-that Congress did nothing. They very clearly didn't do nothing. I don't know how you can argue they did. :?

Same as when he got elected...i dislike him..and he hasn't been doing a very good job IMO..

[QUOTE="DaBrainz"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

... You wouldn't say "They hate us for our freedoms!", "We have to fight them over there, so they don't come over here!" as not anti-intellectual? Yes indeed Palin is not in office which is fortunate indeed, that doesn't stop her from being the most popular figure within the Republican party... I would tend to agree if it were not for the fact that these figures were massively popular and consistently depend on such ridiculous rhetoric.. which I do agree Obama's security policy is too close to Bush's but unfortunately if he were change this at all, such as leaving Iraq and Afghanistan, the republicans would call him a coward and traitor.. The fact that a large % think he feels pitty for the terrorists, or isn't even a natural born american is proof of this.. This may not be the case for a large % but that is their fault as well, they have led the party to getting hijacked by a social conservative evangelical movement.

sSubZerOo

The point is (and I'm pretty sure that I've argued with you on this topic before), that the Democrats and supporters are just as prone to what you call "ridiculous rhetoric". And to somehow equate anti-intellectualism with only republicans is anti-intellectual in itself. Since anti-intellectualism remains somewhat constant across all boundaries then there is no movement.

Both Bush and Obama represent the most liberal movement since the LBJ days. That's whyi ts very illogical to represent Bush as a pillar of anti-intellectualism without saying the same thing about Obama.

Edit:Gamespottookthespacesoutandiputthembackin,

I agree SOME what.. The problem is this.. Liberals have not been hijacked by a radical minority in which they will scream at the president in the middle of speeches saying he is a liar, will use rhetoric that he is a socialist (when clearly he is not), suggest that the healthcare reform will create death panels.. This isn't some minority that barely gets coverage, it is constantly covered as a main talking point.... Furthermore anti-intellectual does not mean liberal.. I don't know where you got that idea, the point being Obama's talking point doesn't get based on ignorant propaganda "Mission accomplished!" on the flight carrier.. He doesn't call Iran, North Korea, etc etc the Axis of Evil.. He is one of the few people to acknowledge that the United States has fair share of the blame with the state of the Middle East for the past 60 years.. He has shown to be humble to the point of taking diplomacy internationally.. Bush was the exact opposite of neo conservative agenda in which there was only one perspective, his.. And any one outside of that were either labeled cowards, traitors etc etc.. And yet again Obama has yet to use a single shred of the propaganda that was over stretched or completely wrong, but it sounded good.. Furthermore Obama has made shown no desire in some how taking over businesses, the point being is the system is broken.. Business models for banks CAN NOT be based on every one for them selves, but the Nash Equilibrium, doing the things in your interest as well as every one else.. When that hasn't been the case.. Furthermore yet again I have yet to see a single fiscal conservative ever criticize the military, something that is completely unncessary in the 21st century of being that size.. Now this is not suggesting all Republicans are like that, the Bush adminstration just represents the neo conservative core which is often times highly religious that has taken over the party.. There are plenty of intelligent and realist republicans in office unfortunately they are drowned out.. Furthermore Republicans are far more cut throat to their own party, where there are more conservative democrats in congress then there are liberal republicans..

I didn'twrite anti-intellectual means liberal. I meant the term is overused by air america disciples and the far left. Its basically olbertarian name calling.

I would say most of your analysis about the republicans is correct. My point is if you take a step back the democrats are just as bad. That concept seems to be lost on you.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="DaBrainz"]

The point is (and I'm pretty sure that I've argued with you on this topic before), that the Democrats and supporters are just as prone to what you call "ridiculous rhetoric". And to somehow equate anti-intellectualism with only republicans is anti-intellectual in itself. Since anti-intellectualism remains somewhat constant across all boundaries then there is no movement.

Both Bush and Obama represent the most liberal movement since the LBJ days. That's whyi ts very illogical to represent Bush as a pillar of anti-intellectualism without saying the same thing about Obama.

Edit:Gamespottookthespacesoutandiputthembackin,

DaBrainz

I agree SOME what.. The problem is this.. Liberals have not been hijacked by a radical minority in which they will scream at the president in the middle of speeches saying he is a liar, will use rhetoric that he is a socialist (when clearly he is not), suggest that the healthcare reform will create death panels.. This isn't some minority that barely gets coverage, it is constantly covered as a main talking point.... Furthermore anti-intellectual does not mean liberal.. I don't know where you got that idea, the point being Obama's talking point doesn't get based on ignorant propaganda "Mission accomplished!" on the flight carrier.. He doesn't call Iran, North Korea, etc etc the Axis of Evil.. He is one of the few people to acknowledge that the United States has fair share of the blame with the state of the Middle East for the past 60 years.. He has shown to be humble to the point of taking diplomacy internationally.. Bush was the exact opposite of neo conservative agenda in which there was only one perspective, his.. And any one outside of that were either labeled cowards, traitors etc etc.. And yet again Obama has yet to use a single shred of the propaganda that was over stretched or completely wrong, but it sounded good.. Furthermore Obama has made shown no desire in some how taking over businesses, the point being is the system is broken.. Business models for banks CAN NOT be based on every one for them selves, but the Nash Equilibrium, doing the things in your interest as well as every one else.. When that hasn't been the case.. Furthermore yet again I have yet to see a single fiscal conservative ever criticize the military, something that is completely unncessary in the 21st century of being that size.. Now this is not suggesting all Republicans are like that, the Bush adminstration just represents the neo conservative core which is often times highly religious that has taken over the party.. There are plenty of intelligent and realist republicans in office unfortunately they are drowned out.. Furthermore Republicans are far more cut throat to their own party, where there are more conservative democrats in congress then there are liberal republicans..

I didn'twrite anti-intellectual means liberal. I meant the term is overused by air america disciples and the far left. Its basically olbertarian name calling.

I would say most of your analysis about the republicans is correct. My point is if you take a step back the democrats are just as bad. That concept seems to be lost on you.

.. Were they though? We can keep saying this and during the 90s i would agree.. But during the 2000 and onward Republican party core seems to be far more extreme then ever.. Especially when that seems the case with Obama where people think he is a extreme liberal, which there is no way in hell he is.. He is alot like Clinton.

Are you kidding??? Have you SEEN what the republicans have been doing to try to stop that bill? They wouldve despised it no matter who the candidate were.peaceoutmedusa

Granted, the Republican's aren't saints by any stretch of the imagination, but demonizing them for Obama's failure in leadership isn't the right way to think about it.

...and I have no idea who SubZero is addressing... I said nothing about the Tea Party, so all of the Tea Party-bashing must be for someone else.

If Obama gets his way, then my family will be losing over half of our income to taxes. In my opinion, the taxes punish people for either being born into a rich family and getting a "rich person job," or being successful, but then the money taken from these people isn't used to help the people on the bottom who truly need it. Honestly, I don't know if ANY president can fix the tax system and welfare.