Why you hate Barack Obama

[DangerBoy]

Bush was running in 2008, it's just that his name was John McCain and most of the congressional Republicans.

By that rationale, Obama was running in 2010. His name just happened to be Nancy Pelosi and the loony toons like Alan Grayson.

[Aradhus]

i was loving how people were thinking barack was gonna be the dope, but turns out he wasnt. so i want to know peoples reasons for supporting him, please post.

With you there. Do you think it was just because he is black?

No, not directly. I believe the liberal media did support him because he was black and effectively that trumped the notion of supporting Hillary because she was a woman. The liberal media, not having anything to go on, really, created this super messiah out of him and his style managed to support their non stop propaganda, disguised as news reporting. Chris Matthews literally had a "tingle up his leg" at the convention. They wanted him to win in a bad way. They wanted to stick it to the vile evil and very naughty G.W. Bush who wasn't even running.

A lot of people (the stupid ones) supported him because they thought he was some damn Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny combined, He would usher an age of free everything.

Some people supported him because they thought he was ultra progressive, the chosen one of George Soros. Public healthcare, repeal of DADT, and the closing of GITMO along with no more wars. How bitterly dissapointed they were in his hollow rhetoric.

If the media is liberal how did liberal become a dirty word..in the media? If the liberal media supported Obama, effectively ensuring his election, what happened in 2004? 2000? 1988? 1984? 1980? If its so liberal why did Clinton get brutalized constantly?

Might it more realistically be that your views, and where you get your views from, Fox etc, are so extreme right wing, that less conservative media would appear liberal in comparison?

[Phatscotty]

i was loving how people were thinking barack was gonna be the dope, but turns out he wasnt. so i want to know peoples reasons for supporting him, please post.

With you there. Do you think it was just because he is black?

No, not directly. I believe the liberal media did support him because he was black and effectively that trumped the notion of supporting Hillary because she was a woman. The liberal media, not having anything to go on, really, created this super messiah out of him and his style managed to support their non stop propaganda, disguised as news reporting. Chris Matthews literally had a "tingle up his leg" at the convention. They wanted him to win in a bad way. They wanted to stick it to the vile evil and very naughty G.W. Bush who wasn't even running.

A lot of people (the stupid ones) supported him because they thought he was some damn Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny combined, He would usher an age of free everything.

Some people supported him because they thought he was ultra progressive, the chosen one of George Soros. Public healthcare, repeal of DADT, and the closing of GITMO along with no more wars. How bitterly dissapointed they were in his hollow rhetoric.

If the media is liberal how did liberal become a dirty word..in the media? If the liberal media supported Obama, effectively ensuring his election, what happened in 2004? 2000? 1988? 1984? 1980?

one missing ingredient. Viewership. nobody watches liberal media, but their talking points, while getting nuttier and nuttier, do make headlines on their ridiculousness.

As for 04, 00, 88, 84.....media fail?

[Phatscotty]

Ted Kennedy Endorses Barack Obama

America will be good again!

[Iliad]

i was loving how people were thinking barack was gonna be the dope, but turns out he wasnt. so i want to know peoples reasons for supporting him, please post.

With you there. Do you think it was just because he is black?

No, not directly. I believe the liberal media did support him because he was black and effectively that trumped the notion of supporting Hillary because she was a woman. The liberal media, not having anything to go on, really, created this super messiah out of him and his style managed to support their non stop propaganda, disguised as news reporting. Chris Matthews literally had a "tingle up his leg" at the convention. They wanted him to win in a bad way. They wanted to stick it to the vile evil and very naughty G.W. Bush who wasn't even running.

A lot of people (the stupid ones) supported him because they thought he was some damn Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny combined, He would usher an age of free everything.

Some people supported him because they thought he was ultra progressive, the chosen one of George Soros. Public healthcare, repeal of DADT, and the closing of GITMO along with no more wars. How bitterly dissapointed they were in his hollow rhetoric.

If the media is liberal how did liberal become a dirty word..in the media? If the liberal media supported Obama, effectively ensuring his election, what happened in 2004? 2000? 1988? 1984? 1980? If its so liberal why did Clinton get brutalized constantly?

Might it more realistically be that your views, and where you get your views from, Fox etc, are so extreme right wing, that less conservative media would appear liberal in comparison?

It's called the hostile media phenomenon and it's been noticed in actual studies. One study showed the same news report about an incident in the Arab-Israeli conflict to people who held the extreme views on the different sides of that issues. Both sides reported that the news report was biased against them. Why: because the news report didn't support the extreme views that they held, the viewers felt it was on the other side politically. And both sides thought that.

And how ironic that while you're complaining about the liberal media disguiising propaganda as news reports you use one of the men that the right wing has been using to drum up fear: George Soros. If you think the media is just hiding political propaganda as news reports, look no further at Fox news. Spare me your ourage, studies have shown that Fox viewers are the worst when it comes to being informed about political facts. And guess what? Every one of the major facts that they are wrong about, such as Democrats started TARP, Obama raised taxes etc, conveniently very much helps the Republicans.You can look at basically anything Fox does: the way they "debate" the guests who are on the left, edit out footage that shows the right wing in a bag light, anything. Fox news is truly the right arm of the Republican party.

What's happening is when you turn on a channel that doesn't feed you that propaganda garbage, you're assuming it's because it's very liberal, because you're assuming your own views are rather in the centre instead of being in the not at all moderate right wing.

[Phatscotty]

rather, when you watch a program, look for this pattern.

The hot gives you a premise, which is probably arguable. Either the host mentions both sides, or they just go with the premise. Then, you will start noticing the host telling you what to think, filling in gaps for you, jumping here and there. Other times, hosts may say "do your own homework" or "don't believe it just because I say it." etc...

When you find a host who is calling names and diminishing one's position, not based on facts, but rather feelings or other things, you can be sure you have your propaganda

[Aradhus]

I've never heard of the "hostile media phenomenon", but it makes sense.

It is inarguable that there is bias everywhere. But that bias has degrees.

On fox: I don't know where I saw this, and if its true, but I heard that a member of the Murdoch family said that Fox was a disgrace to journalism.

I think there is a distinction, which some people might think has no merit, that the agenda at fox isn't to be the propaganda arm of the republican party.

The agenda at fox is corporate interests. Fox isn't interested in news, or journalism, for fox its all about the bottom line.

How they treated ron paul is a good example. The economic and foreign policies Dr Paul advocates would be disastrous for corporate interests. But Fox then co-opted the tea party, promoted the hell out of it, because that feeds their bottom line, their agenda, in a couple of different ways.

Fox and the republican party are a marriage of convenience.

I can explain this in better detail, but I don't have the time here.

[patches70]

How they treated ron paul is a good example. The economic and foreign policies Dr Paul advocates would be disastrous for corporate interests.

The corporate interests are not the same as the Nation's interests. I am not sure that the above is such a bad thing......


In regards to the title of this thread, for myself I say-

I do not in anyway hate Barrack Hussein Obama. I just think he is an idiot, a liar, a demagogue, addicted to the illusion of "power", a narcissist and unable to separate himself from his ideological agenda even in the face of the insanity of it.

He is not any different from the previous administration, except that he takes it to a higher degree. He hasn't done a damn thing different from Bush other than to go bigger that even Bush would have ever dared.

Obama is just a typical politicians, just some more of the same. Hating him is a waste of time. The individual must still persevere despite Mr Obama and his ilk standing in the way. They just make it harder is all. I pity anyone who has put their faith in him or in any political party for that matter.

If anyone expects Mr Obama to do anything worthwhile, well, I need only remind you of what "expectations" are-

"Expectations are nothing more than planned disappointments."

Plan to be disappointed.....

[Juan_Bottom]

Oddly enough, the BBC did a report on this just before the '04 election, however, they mainly targeted CNN. The guy running the show for Viacom was quoted as saying "A republican would be a better president for us right now" (George Bush) and then they showed a time-line of how that effected the bias of their journalism. They didn't outright say that Viacom and the other Corporate Media outlets were going to cost Al Gore the election, but they did show a correlation between the statement and a renewed wave of support in their reports for G. W. Bush. It's funny that foreign media outlets are not only doing stories on how corrupted and biased our news agencies are, but that they also try to spoon feed these agencies real news. Before Dan Rather lost his job for reporting a sound story with shaky evidence, the BBC did the exact same story with real documents and interviews. They showed that not only did George W. Bush use his father's connections to avoid going to Vietnam (so did many others), but that he also avoided volunteering for any form of combat assignments. They interviewed men who flew with him who said he was despised for being the only one who wouldn't take his fair turn in Vietnam (though they also said he was a great pilot). When the BBC offered the story and evidence to CBS, they kindly said "no thanks." But, when Dan Rather did the story later, no one brought up this fact. Instead they crucified him. It's like the X-Files.