Why Do Republicans Appear To Be So Disrespectful to President Obama?

Because of his Canadian heritage? But was it nearly as heated as it was with Obama, and was it a coded way of using racial slurs, and did Arthur's enemies demand he prove where he was born?
 
The birther thing (which is essentially coded racism) is not mild at all, particularly compared with conspiracy nuts, claims about the recession, the "not-my-president" stuff, etc.
It's not racism, it's based on xenophobia. If Obama's father were born in Germany or China or Mexico or Australia we'd be seeing the exact same thing. And the whole "Not my President" stuff, the left acted the exact same way with Bush.
 
Xenophobia didn't seem to bother them when they thought Schwarzenegger was one of them and he was considering running for president.
 
Xenophobia didn't seem to bother them when they thought Schwarzenegger was one of them and he was considering running for president.
Actually for most it did. It was more of the establishment types that were in favor of considering it, but most were against it and it was never seen as having a chance of passing it. Again, you guys have a very selective memory.
 
It's not racism, it's based on xenophobia. If Obama's father were born in Germany or China or Mexico or Australia we'd be seeing the exact same thing. And the whole "Not my President" stuff, the left acted the exact same way with Bush.

Nobody questioned McCain's citizenship even though he was born in Panama (on an army base so he's a US Citizen, I know) but noone asked to see his birth certificate to confirm it

Yet Obama, who was born IN AMERICA, still gets that nonsense
So you can say its xenophobia because of his name or whatever, but it's hard to argue that a milky white motherf***er like McCain would get treated that way, even if his name were Kim Jong Hussein McHitler.

That said, yes, it gets just as bad from average liberals towards republican presidents as well. The Nazi comparisons were definitely too much in the Bush days, as they are now.

The difference I believe is in Congress. Congressional Dems worked with Bush, even when they had to heavily compromise, they only filibustered a fraction as much as Repubs have since Obama took over, and they didn't scheme on Bush's first day in office to obstruct everything so he'd lose the next election at the cost of our economy.

"Not My President" under Bush came from Dems feeling robbed in the 2000 election and not wanting Americans to be associated with his policies, with Obama, its because Reps view him as illegitimate for any number of fake reasons, despite that fact that he's a natural born American, a good president, and won the popular vote in a landslide
 
Last edited:
The same reason Democrats were disrespectful to President Bush and Republicans dragged President Clinton through the mud.
THIS.

Discussion in the thread over.

Democrat Liberals seem to convienently forget all the flat out hate speech directed at GWBush.
 
I never said Bush cause 911 or anything like that.

but saying he's an idiot, is a fact.
no bias in that. It's science.

Again, history should be taken in account. Bush may not have been at Garfield-level intellect, but it could have, and has been, much worse. You want an idiot President, you look at U.S. Grant.


And it doesn't matter how qualified or "good" a president is, the opposing party will always find reasons to drag him through the mud.
 
There wasn't a real split among Republicans concerning the birther controversy the way there was with Schwarzenegger.
 
Nobody questioned McCain's citizenship even though he was born in Panama (on an army base so he's a US Citizen, I know) but noone asked to see his birth certificate to confirm it
1. He was born of two American parents.
2. He was born on an army base, therefore he was born on American soil in a legal sense.
3. Obama was also hindered by the unfortunate fact that for a long time, he didn't know where his long form birth certificate was. It was packed away in his Chicago home with his mother's stuff. That missing birth certificate gave the birther movement much more traction than it ever should have.

Yet Obama, who was born IN AMERICA, still gets that nonsense
So you can say its xenophobia because of his name or whatever, but it's hard to argue that a milky white motherf***er like McCain would get treated that way, even if his name were Kim Jong Hussein McHitler.
It's xenophobia because of his Muslim Kenyan father who was a British national and he has brothers and sisters that live in Kenya to this day. It's the exact same thing we saw with JFK's Catholicism, they feared if JFK would be loyal to America or loyal to the Pope. Is Obama loyal to America or is he more loyal to ties elsewhere.

Now, I'm not defending the the basis of birtherism. It's based on absolute stupidity like how they don't acknowledge that Obama was born in Hawaii, which last time we checked is an American state and therefore he gets automatic citizenship at birth. And he has an American citizen/resident mother, which also grants him automatic American citizenship at birth, even if he were born in Kenya.

But you people just like to play the race card and accuse others of racism simply because it's easy. It's easier to say something is racist than something is xenophobic because it's a simpler word and racism is seen as much uglier than xenophobia. And you use the race card to justify the made up narratives in your head that Republicans are nothing but vile evil men.

That said, yes, it gets just as bad from average liberals towards republican presidents as well. The Nazi comparisons were definitely too much in the Bush days, as they are now.
Agreed, neither President has done anything that is comparable to Hitler. You wanna know who was comparable to Hitler? Freaking Hitler!

The difference I believe is in Congress. Congressional Dems worked with Bush,
Congress was very different then. During the Bush era while you had your idiots of both sides, there were still many Blue Dog Democrats and Rockefeller Republicans that could work together. Those have been wiped out. The Republicans and Democrats really didn't have to deal with the ideological grassroots that both parties now have to pander to. And Bush had the benefit of 9/11 happening which gave him sky high approval ratings until the Iraq War build-up, which essentially allowed him to do whatever the **** he wanted.

It's not that one side is better than the other, it's that Bush had far, far, far easier circumstances, especially in his first term.

even when they had to heavily compromise, they only filibustered a fraction as much as Repubs have since Obama took over,
When Bush's standing was severely diminished, especially when the Iraq War was starting to look really bad, that was when the Democrats were able to fight Bush more aggressively.

and they didn't scheme on Bush's first day in office to obstruct everything so he'd lose the next election at the cost of our economy.
Selective memory. Democrats were extremely ******** over the 2000 election and looked for many ways to delegitimize Bush. Not only that, but political parties always plot to gain power at the expense of others. Just like how Republicans plotted from day one to make Obama a one-term President, Democrats did the same thing with Bush. Hell if political parties didn't do that, they're not doing their job.

"Not My President" under Bush came from Dems feeling robbed in the 2000 election, with Obama, its because Reps view him as illegitimate, despite that fact that he's a natural Born American and won the popular vote in a landslide
It's still the same ****ing immature bullcrap from people who act like 5 year olds. The President of the United States is the President of the United States. If you're a citizen of the United States, these men were your President, whether you like it or not.
 
I never said Bush cause 911 or anything like that.

but saying he's an idiot, is a fact.
no bias in that. It's science.
Actually it's been stated that Bush was quite intelligent. While his delivery was rather poor and you can certainly disagree with his policies, but his intelligence was not lacking. I think Keith Hennessey said it perfectly that his dumb image was created by late-night media, Bush being a Southerner, his multiple stumbles, intentionally catering his image towards average joes than the elites, and a rather jockish lifestyle.
 
Just one word comparing Obama to Bush when it comes to congress members:

BENGHAZI


How many bases got attacked when Bush was in power and we didn't get many congress hearings, seems like Republicans were going all Clinton on Obama trying to find one thing to impeach Obama with by shooting everything at the wall
 
Oh c'mon now. Birtherism is racism. Xenophobia and racism are the same damn thing in this case. If Obama's dad was a white man from Toronto it would be brought up maybe once and then dropped.

No one would be talking about his "Canadian upbringing", or whatever Huckabee called it.
 
Actually it's been stated that Bush was quite intelligent. While his delivery was rather poor and you can certainly disagree with his policies, but his intelligence was not lacking. I think Keith Hennessey said it perfectly that his dumb image was created by late-night media, Bush being a Southerner, his multiple stumbles, intentionally catering his image towards average joes than the elites, and a rather jockish lifestyle.

It's been stated his IQ is decently high
IQ is different from intelligence, as people all over the world demonstrate every day
...

ps. My "milky white motherf*****" line was hyperbole, and a joke, so don't go gettin all "You people" on me!
;)
 
Last edited:
Bush may have average intelligence. But, he had everything in life handed to him, making him rather helpless. He was a C student, got into an Ivy League school thanks to being a legacy (he was actually rejected by a Texas university after Yale), was put in a Champagne Unit thanks to his political connections, and was given businesses which he by most accounts managed poorly.

He is essentially the embodiment of nepotism.

It's truly embarrassing that this man was ever put in charge of anything more than a gas station.
 
Nobody questioned McCain's citizenship even though he was born in Panama (on an army base so he's a US Citizen, I know) but noone asked to see his birth certificate to confirm it

Yet Obama, who was born IN AMERICA, still gets that nonsense
So you can say its xenophobia because of his name or whatever, but it's hard to argue that a milky white motherf***er like McCain would get treated that way, even if his name were Kim Jong Hussein McHitler.
/QUOTE]

actually that did happen. I almost brought it up earlier because I remember it back when he ran for the nomination against W. It also was brought up in 08 just Google it. If Mccain won in 08 there would have been a democratic version of birthers after all Hillary supporters started the birther movement.
 
Last edited:
Oh c'mon now. Birtherism is racism. Xenophobia and racism are the same damn thing in this case. If Obama's dad was a white man from Toronto it would be brought up maybe once and then dropped.

No one would be talking about his "Canadian upbringing", or whatever Huckabee called it.
This claim that anything related to a certain thing is an "ism" can work both ways. When a liberal calls Sara Palin a "c-word" does that mean she only got criticized because liberals are sexist? Or does that only apply when conservatives call Hilary a "c-word"?

How about when Dems mocked John McCain's age? Does that mean Dems hate old people?

When a liberal attacks a Republican with references to them being white, does that mean liberals are racist against white people?

How about when conservatives mocked Kerry for being stiff and looking somewhat like Herman Munster? Does that mean they hate all people with that physical appearance?

Or are we really talking about politics and how people on both sides grab onto anything they can to criticize the opposing party? If you don't think Republicans would seize upon a Democrat who had a parent from Canada and couldn't produce a birth certificate for a while, you haven't been watching politics for long.

Exactly why would a conservative like Obama's policies? Are they supposed to like spending increases, government run health care, EPA regulations, immigration policies, his plan for "electricity prices to skyrocket", gay marriage, and reduced military spending? (I'm ok with some of these)

I mean...he's a liberal, what exactly do you expect from conservatives? He's seen as anti-business by conservatives.

Bush may have average intelligence. But, he had everything in life handed to him, making him rather helpless. He was a C student, got into an Ivy League school thanks to being a legacy (he was actually rejected by a Texas university after Yale), was put in a Champagne Unit thanks to his political connections, and was given businesses which he by most accounts managed poorly.

He is essentially the embodiment of nepotism.

It's truly embarrassing that this man was ever put in charge of anything more than a gas station.
Oh yeah....liberals didn't attack Bush or demean him at all. It all suddenly sprang into being with Obama. :cwink:

You might want to tone down the old Bush rhetoric used against him for 8 years if you want to rewrite history now.
 
I was actually the first to say that a lot of the criticism direct at Sarah Palin was sexist. But then she outed herself as an idiot, and that became the primary focus for pretty much everyone.

Conservatives, or at least most of those I know, and see on television treat him like he is the anti-Christ. They compare him to Hitler, and call him an emperor.

Obamacare is a God send to the insurance companies, so I'm not sure why you don't like that. It requires everyone to give money to private company. Corporate profits are at an all time high. The rich are richer, and the poor are poorer.

Obama is a hawk who has bombed more countries than Bush. He's increased defense spending (adjust for inflation).

What's not to love?

If you think Obama is a good liberal president, I'd hate to see what a conservative is.
 
I was actually the first to say that a lot of the criticism direct at Sarah Palin was sexist. But then she outed herself as an idiot, and that became the primary focus for pretty much everyone.

Conservatives, or at least most of those I know, and see on television treat him like he is the anti-Christ. They compare him to Hitler, and call him an emperor.

Obamacare is a God send to the insurance companies, so I'm not sure why you don't like that. It requires everyone to give money to private company. Corporate profits are at an all time high. The rich are richer, and the poor are poorer.

Obama is a hawk who has bombed more countries than Bush. He's increased defense spending (adjust for inflation).

What's not to love?

If you think Obama is a good liberal president, I'd hate to see what a conservative is.

You could type all that up on some nice paper, jot down all the statistics and research studies, insert some pretty graphs, put it in a box, wrap it up, put a bow on it, and deliver it first class to John Boehner's house. He'll burn that s***.
 
This claim that anything related to a certain thing is an "ism" can work both ways. When a liberal calls Sara Palin a "c-word" does that mean she only got criticized because liberals are sexist? Or does that only apply when conservatives call Hilary a "c-word"?

How about when Dems mocked John McCain's age? Does that mean Dems hate old people?

When a liberal attacks a Republican with references to them being white, does that mean liberals are racist against white people?

How about when conservatives mocked Kerry for being stiff and looking somewhat like Herman Munster? Does that mean they hate all people with that physical appearance?

Or are we really talking about politics and how people on both sides grab onto anything they can to criticize the opposing party? If you don't think Republicans would seize upon a Democrat who had a parent from Canada and couldn't produce a birth certificate for a while, you haven't been watching politics for long.
As much as I often disagree with you, you perfectly hit the nail on the head with this.
 
Attacks against Palin and McCain that focus on sex and age are sexist and ageist, respectively, just as much as the anti-Obama attacks that focus on his race.
 
Attacks against Palin and McCain that focus on sex and age are sexist and ageist, respectively, just as much as the anti-Obama attacks that focus on his race.
Except the majority of attacks on Obama aren't about his race. Birthers are focused on his foreign and Muslim father, which are xenophobic and Islamophobic, but not racist. Conservatives often attack his polices, often inaccurately. Very rarely are attacks on Obama attacks on him because he's black.

Much of the attacks on McCain, were blatant ageism. Palin, while there were some sexist attacks, most of her criticisms were based on the simple fact that she was a dumbtard.
 
There wasn't a real split among Republicans concerning the birther controversy the way there was with Schwarzenegger.
With Schwarzenegger, he wasn't taking Presidential aspirations seriously. Thus a potential birther controversy was quelled quickly. Also, he didn't have a missing birth certificate that made something that should have died down fast, last much longer than it should have.
 
Obama didn't have a missing birth certificate. His place of birth stopped issuing the sort of certificate his enemies were looking for, but the live birth certification was taken as adequate enough by his state of birth. And attacks on his race weren't rare (maybe comparatively), with the foreign and Muslim attacks often serving as obvious stand-in's for race.

Arnold himself was taken seriously enough (even if Rove dismissed him) until he showed his more moderate colors -- his support of universal health care, his objection against impeaching Clinton, etc.
 
Last edited:
Obama didn't have a missing birth certificate.
His original long form birth certificate was packed away with his mother's stuff in his Chicago home. It's why it took so long for them to finally show it. It's not that it was lost or destroyed, it was a simple case of he didn't really know where it was. It's both a funny and sad story. He was (rightfully) baffled by the birther movement that on one of the rare times he was at his Chicago home he actually went through his mom's stuff that he never really went through and finally found it. He was so happy that he was showing it off to other White House staff members with such a big smile.

His place of birth stopped issuing the sort of certificate his enemies were looking for, but the live birth certification was taken as adequate enough by his state of birth.
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the rationality of birtherism. Not one bit. On top of the hospital and state government proving that Obama was born in Hawaii, birthers don't understand how American citizenship laws work where they not only conveniently forget that Hawaii is an American state but he also has a white Kansan mother (which is about as American as you can get).

But I think that the lack of the original long form birth certificate being missing for some time, allowed the movement to live on much longer than it should have. It's a damn shame really.

And attacks on his race weren't rare (maybe comparatively), with the foreign and Muslim attacks often serving as obvious stand-in's for race.
But again, they're not attacking his race. People trying to use the race card are simply doing it because racism is an easier word to understand than xenophobia and Islamophobia. And even though they're all bigotry, racism is seen as an uglier word.

Arnold himself was taken seriously enough (even if Rove dismissed him) until he showed his more moderate colors -- his support of universal health care, his objection against impeaching Clinton, etc.
Arnold was never taken seriously. The more anti-immigrant wing of his party, which always existed, would have never allowed it. The only people hyping up an Ahnuld Presidency, was the media.
 
And attacks on his race weren't rare (maybe comparatively), with the foreign and Muslim attacks often serving as obvious stand-in's for race.

I don't think they outright made racist comments but they used dog whistles saying things that could be interpreted that way(depending how the person listening to it heard it). I noticed alot of saying "he/they doesn't understand America/American values/etc". Statements like that can be open to interpretation

Beyond being called a Muslim, he was refered to even worse one of those secular atheist Muslims(this one always made me laugh, even funnier then christian pastor Rev Wright got brought up in the convo). lol
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
202,288
Messages
22,080,003
Members
45,880
Latest member
Heartbeat
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"