1st Black President, 1st President forced to produce a birth certificate, 1st President to be. . .

[wndycty]

. . .heckled during a State of the Union speech, 1st President to be rejected by the GOD DAMNED Speaker of the House.

I am sick of this shit.

[Ineeda]

1. Me, too.

[atheistprogress]

2. First president to kill osama bin laden...

[AtheistCrusader]

103. :High 5:

[Myrina]

128. Odd, I don't remember him being a SEAL ...

:shrug:

[W T F]

161. Me neither, but I do remember him being Commander-in-Chief

[demigoddess]

185. exactly, the seals don't do anything without the orders from

The Commander In Chief of the United States

[Cali_Democrat]

3. For the life of me I can't understand why Obama just sits there and takes it

instead of punching those motherfuckers in the mouth.

[emulatorloo]

5. Seriously? This is Obama's fault? Lets take the birth certificate example

Obama regularly dismissed the birther claims when asked about it.

Wingnuts and wingnut media kept pushing it.

Eventually Trump brought it into the mainstream media.

Mainstream media became obsessed with it.

[Cali_Democrat]

7. Huh?

[emulatorloo]

10. Edited my post to add content, Additionally,

Your first response appears to blame Obama.

OP writes:

"1st President forced to produce a birth certificate, heckled during a State of the Union speec"

You write:

"For the life of me I can't understand why Obama just sits there and takes it"

rather than pointing at the Republicans and the MSM who are behind all of this.

[Cali_Democrat]

13. I don't think it's his fault that Republicans are assholes

I'm not sure how my post led you to believe I was blaming Obama for all that has been happening. I'm just curious why he doesn't fight back and confront them about it.

But it certainly isn't his fault.

[lumpy]

190. He is faulty for not "punching those MFs for not punching them in

mouth"? That is not Presidential protocol.

[AngryAmish]

169. He still hasn't produced a real birth certificate

You know, the one signed by the Jedi Knights.

[dennis4868]

9. really?

you expect Obama to punch another person?

[Cali_Democrat]

16. LOL

You thought I meant that literally? You think I actually want Obama to punch them?

:rofl:

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. Why not? I would. nt

[yardwork]

26. LOL!

[FedUp_Queer]

154. My sentiments exactly.

This "rejection" is all a show. Obama is one of them, that's why he doesn't fight back. President More War and National Security State.

[Sheepshank]

188. oh bullshit

Obama has NEVER come across as a Perry/Mr. Testoterone type. Not to me not to anyone. if you are implying this is what you thought you were getting when you voted for Obama (and I'm assuming you voted for him or you are simply pretending to be a Dem), you were duped by your own imagination. Nothing more nothing less.

[RaleighNCDUer]

206. I voted for Obama because he was the last one standing.

I knew he was far more conservative than I, but he TALKED a good liberal line and hoped he wold rise above himself and live up to the campaign promises.

Question today is, did he not live up to them because he can't, or because he won't? The 'instant surrender' Dems say can't. I think otherwise.

BTW, you don't have to be "Mr Testosterone" (interesting you should choose Perry as an example) to stand firm for your ideals. Kucinich looks like a strong wind would knock him over, but he stands taller than Obama does for progressive principles.

[FedUp_Queer]

210. Again, you should really try English.

I voted for someone who said he was going to do the following (or, by implication, try):

Fight for a public option;
Fight for the importation of Canadian drugs to compete with over-priced domestic drugs;
Put on his "comfortable shoes" and walk the picket lines with union folks;
Fight to pass the EFCA;
Close down Gitmo (and not expand another Gitmo at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan);
Involve us in less wars (and not engage in additional incursions into Somalia, Libya (and don't give this crap about it being a 'NATO' operation...the US IS NATO) and Yemen);
Repeal the Bush tax cuts;
and others.

If he had fought and lost, that's one thing. However, he never even tried. (Just like he will probably cave and approve the tar sands pipeline...just like his corporate and right-wing masters tell him...but I hope I'm pleasantly surprised).

I also did NOT vote for a person who would be:

FOR indefinite detention (even for those acquitted of charges at Gitmo);
FOR more warrantless wiretapping;
FOR the continuation of the Bush policy of extraordinary rendition;
FOR the assertion that he may unilaterally, without trial, order the killing of an American Citizen'
FOR deporting more undocumented PEOPLE than Bush did;
FOR prosecuting more whistle blowers than ANYONE has;
FOR cuts in social security, medicare and medicaid;
FOR complete government immunity from citizen lawsuits who suffered harm from the government wiretapping them without warrants (incidentally going further than the Bush administration did);
FOR torture at Bagram air base and arguing that the people held there are outside the jurisdiction of US courts (which is exactly what Bush tried to argue regarding GITMO);
and the list goes on.

I love PINOs (progressives in name only) and LINOs (liberals in name only) like you who set up your Rick Perry and Sarah Palin and whatever the right-wing nutball du jour strawmen. I know what and whom I voted for. I did not vote for a milquetoast president who is in reality nothing but a tool of the right and corporate America. I will note vote for him again. And, of course, I will note vote for any of the GOPers. Finally, am I Democrat? Nope (at least not what a Democrat is today). I'm a Democrat in the FDR vein. Remember it is O(GOP)bama who modeled his cabinet (or at least he said he did) off of a Republican. More than whether I have a "D" or "R" associated with my name is not the issue. I, like other progressives, have principles that transcend party. I, like other progressives, will call out a Democrat for doing things that I called out a Republican for doing. Principles over ANY party...always.

[toddwv]

17. Because then he would be the 1st President

to be declared an "angry black man".

Honestly, he timed the presentation of his BC perfectly to make the birthers look like the morons that they are...

[Empowerer]

23. True!

Just look at the reaction right here on DU when people try to defend the President against these things? We're told we're making race an issue, playing the race card, calling people racist, etc. Imagine the reaction if the President did what people are now demanding he do.

Blaming HIM for "enabling" racists is outrageous. It's amazing how far people will go to shift the blame for such behavior - talk about enabling . . .

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

122. +1,000,000,000,000,000.....!!

:toast::toast:

[pangaia]

126. Sure, but who will remember it..?

[mkultra]

152. yup, its stupidity to not recognize that he must be far above standard behavior

The black bar is always higher. If his actions matched those of presidents before him, he would receive double the criticism and double the negative numbers.

[vaberella]

25. Uh cause...he was hired to do a job. And so were they by the same crowd. n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

29. So that's why he just sits there and takes this disrespectful crap from the GOP?

Because he was hired to do a job and Republicans were also hired by the same crowd?

[vaberella]

39. I don't really know what you want him to do to get respect for the GOP.

They have shown he will never get their respect. particularly for some because he's Black. I don't see what else he has to do. He has a job to do and he has to work with these people. There is absolutely nothing he can do---unless you have some clues because you haven't said anything that would suggest you know he is supposed to get their respect.

[EffieBlack]

42. There are few things more sickening that watching

white folks lecture a black man about how he's supposed to address racism directed at him.

Talk about patronizing entitlement.

[handmade34]

80. +1

[Cali_Democrat]

95. Which white folks are you referring to?

[EffieBlack]

98. The ones who lecture a black man about how he's supposed to address racism directed at him

Just like I said.

[Cali_Democrat]

99. Can you give me a specific example of this?

You seemed to be pretty specific.

[EffieBlack]

100. In order to avoid getting deleted for a specific "callout," I'll simply suggest your read

some of the posts in this thread.

[Cali_Democrat]

107. How do you know the race of the posters?

[shellgame26]

96. Thank you

"Why does he just sit there and take it?"

How ridiculous!

[Shining Jack]

102. How do you know who is AA an who's not? nt

[dionysus]

138. he's supposed to get ANGRY!!!!!111 but then if he got ANGRY!!1!1!!, they'd say that was bad too...

it's lose-lose for him whatever he does and that's just how they like it.
:shrug:

[JuniperLea]

195. You got that right....

It's embarrassing as hell.

And you know they are needling him at every turn in the hope he will lose his cool... so they can call him an angry black man.

I'm so sick of this fertilizer.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

207. Not only patronizing but utterly offensive! n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

97. I want him to stand up and fight. I don't want him to keep on caving into GOP demands.

Instead he just sits there and continues to take an ass kicking from the bullies.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

125. And, what Cali and others who hold this view don't understand is how the powerful

Corporate-owned Media doesn't go after Republicans. They act as if there is some moral equivalency between the two parties!! The media has abdicated its job to educate the American public. And, the Democrats that we do see on these talk shows tend to be center-right. You won't see a Maxine Waters on "Meet the Press." You won't see Bernie Sanders on "This Week" unless the M$M wants to exploit when he disagrees with the president.

One man can't do it alone. He didn't say, "Yes *I* Can." He said "Yes *WE* Can!"

Why don't we do our part, then? Rather than bash the man 24-7, why can't we try and educate the American public about what's going on?

Many of us are well versed in the Constitution and know damn well that it gives enormous powers to the Speaker of the House. If the president can only request a joint session, how is that HIS fault if the assholes in the Republican Party reject him? Either we love and respect the Constitution or we don't.

If we don't like the fact that the Republicans, lead by Boehner, get to control the rules, then let's elect MORE progressives to the Congress and get rid of these jerks!

That's how you punch them in their faces!! You vote them OUT!!!!!

[Auntie Bush]

146. Well said!

Get them the hell out of office and our business. In fact I wish we could get them out of our country...they don't give a damn about it!!!!

[Chipper Chat]

149. reply to 125:

AMEN!!!!!!

[SemperEadem]

179. well said

this is about a lot more than folks wanting to be amused by the president getting angry... this is about the msm twisting his outburst into the same sort of narrative that ran Howard Dean out of his presidential aspirations... he's angry, he's unstable, is he fit to lead, blah blah fucking blah.

Understand who is controlling the msm narrative and why and you will have your answer as to why the man is taking the path he's taking. The msm panders to the angry, narrow-minded, mediocre white conservative male who is pissed that he does not have an entitlement to the same life situation his great grand pappy had.

Obama could shit gold bricks and coins and the msm would be pissed because someone would have to pick it up. And the reason why the msm is controlling the narrative is because no one in the business is willing to fry fux noose's ass for the bullshit they routinely put out. Look how they all circled their wagons when Obama said that fux noose wasn't a legitimate news source--which it isn't. But they all jumped onto fux's side and that showed that they all were in collusion with the treachery of what we all know fux is doing--trying to systematically lull everyone into a stupor as they attempt roll the clock back to the 1930's in this country when no one but white males had rights.

Am I pissed that he caved? You bet I am. However, I think he should go ahead with a meeting--but with an audience full of unemployed people, even if they have to be bussed in for the event--and to give that speech to them---because they are the ones who do the voting. Then the next night he can come into the house with some cred from the street and call them all bitches to their faces.

[JuniperLea]

196. Well said!

That's the only punching I want to see.

He's walking up a sand hill in 111 degree weather while carrying 111 lbs of concrete on his back with 111 GOTPers heckling him and 111 Democrats heckling him... give him an effing break... and give him an effing hand FFS!

[Tumbulu]

198. you got it! (nt)

[FedUp_Queer]

218. Ok. Riddle me this batman.

Who gave a speech being in favor of indefinite detention?

Whose administration claimed complete government immunity against suits citizens bring for being wiretapped without a warrant?

Who gave a speech saying that ever some people acquitted in the military tribunals, his administration would keep them detained anyway?

Whose administration never even fought for a public option?

Whose administration is continuing to render people to "black sites?"

Whose administration has expanded a "Gitmo East" at Bagram air base?

Whose administration has us now engaged in Libya, Yemen and Somalia?

Here's the point. It's not as if he's fighting for things and those GD GOPers are blocking him. He's fighting for the wrong things. Yes, the GOP is the problem, but, sorry to say it, HE'S the problem, too. Give him all the liberal/progressive dems in the world, and he's still not a liberal/progressive dem, given what his administration has done that didn't need any congressional approval.

[FedUp_Queer]

155. He (and apparently you) don't get it.

He doesn't need their respect. He will never get their respect (and he's either too dumb or too full of hubris to realize this). He needs the American people's respect. He has lost the American people's respect because the man never fights for anything.

[Sheepshank]

189. your meme is just plain dumb....

you want a man who is not make up the 'stuff of Perry or Cheney', to do when they would do. you absolutely don't understand they type of person Obama is, how he governs and how he feels he must govern as the first Balck President. You have the fucking nerve to call him dumb? I call bullshit on that.

[FedUp_Queer]

209. I think you should learn to read and write. After that, come back and write something coherent.

As a speaker of English, and an educated one at that, I don't even know what you are saying. Quite simply, it's not English (if gibberish were a language, you'd the poet laureate). In any event, we need a president who actually fights for something and compromises as a tactic, not as a be all and end all.

[Karenina]

212. Oh, ick...

[Bendra]

148. You know, everyone

is looking for a big fight to break out between Obama and the Republicans. And everyone is disappointed that he has not done that. We are too busy conflating strength and power with bluster, finger-pointing, threats and loud rhetoric. That's what makes Rick Perry so popular. That and the shilling of God.

I think Obama is trying to model civility to an increasingly wild west nation (that would be us). And if the Rethugs and Democrats and the CBC and the state governors and the Supreme Court don't get it, don't tone down the rhetoric and don't try to listen for a few good ideas among the shouts and outright lies, we will soon reach a level of thuggery that guarantees to seal the fate of this nation. We may already be there.

ALL of them will share in the blame, because "not getting along" will be the clear cause of our downfall. The world is watching.

Now, if that's not acceptable to you, consider that Obama does have the opportunity to respond to whatever comes out of the Republican debate (good luck on that one) by speaking last.

If one party is dedicated not to good government, but to blocking the actions of the other party, our nation will suffocate. That is what Barack Obama is trying to show us. Are we mature enough to understand this?

[leftynyc]

160. He's failing miserably

I'm pretty sure this is the first time since his Presidency that I'm not defending him. This whole thing makes him look weak....Boehner wont let him speak at the Capitol? Fine, have the speech anywhere - speak from the Oval Office. I'm tired of defending someone who does nothing to defend himself. This country respects leaders (whether you agree with them or not). President Obama has led nothing and has proved over and over again there is nothing he will fight for. He'll get my vote but that's all he'll get.

[shellgame26]

164. Well-said

Welcome:hi:

[RaleighNCDUer]

168. Actually, what he's showing us is if the other side yells loud enough

they get what they want.

'Wild west' is right - but you might recall, at the end of the story Jimmy Stewart did face down Liberty Valance on Liberty's terms. All his quiet talk, appeasing, and finding a 'middle way' went nowhere.

There are people who only understand one thing. There is no other way to deal with them, other than face them down and show that you are bigger, stronger, or more willing to scrap it out with them than they are.

[lumpy]

193. We don't live in a movie.

nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

203. You don't live in reality, either.

Reality is, giving in encourages bad behavior.

What is the purpose of art if not to teach us about ourselves?

[SemperEadem]

180. they're trying to turn it all into another stupid reality tv show

like "bad girls" where someone totally sinks into vulgarity and that's somehow supposed to be amusing.

[woolldog]

4. I'm sick of it too.

The problem is that Obama has enabled this behavior every step of the way. And it only makes them more openly disrespectful.

He needs to stand firm on this date. And the house dems will show up and the senate will show up and if the house republicans don't....then oh well. It'll look like they don't care about jobs.

[treestar]

15. Of course it's his own fault if he is treated wrongly

:sarcasm:

Some people blame everything on Obama, even the behavior of other people toward him.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. To a certain degree, YES.

The ONLY way to deal with a bully is to stand up to him. You can't reason with him. You can't negotiate with him. YOU PUNCH HIM IN THE FUCKING MOUTH.

Being concilliatory to a bully just makes him and his buddies pile on harder. Right from the beginning, Obama was 'reasonable' and 'non-judgemental' when what he needed to do was call them out, ridicule them, and employ his considerable oratorial skills to show HOW absurd they are. He didn't, and they piled on.

He is the most powerful person in the world - literally. These RW curs nipping at his heels should be no bother at all - the ONLY reason they are a bother is because HE elevates them to his level by acting as if they and their ideas, which have failed for 30 fucking years, have merit enough for him to bother with.

If he just ignored them and did his fucking job, his numbers would be in the high 60s today.

[woolldog]

37. Exactly -nt

[treestar]

55. Obama is not a junior high student in a schoolyard

No, you don't punch other people in the fuckin' mouth. Not without getting arrested.

This kind of thinking causes me to assume you must be a bully, too. You are granting bullies a RIGHT to do what they do, because they get to have the rest of us "tested."

He is not the most powerful person on earth. What a ridiculous fantasy. Likely one a bully would have that there is any such person.

[TheEuclideanOne]

108. It was a fucking metaphor

geez, Nobody is speaking literally here. You can punch somebody in the fucking mouth from a political standpoint. There are a number of ways he can whip their ass and beat them at their own game.

Now, before you get totally panick stricken and need to break out your medication (maybe that time is too late), when I said "Whip their ass", I did not mean that he should pull their pants down, bring an actual whip and strike them with it. It is an expression. "Whip their ass" means to defeat them. Don't take everything so literally, man!

[maddiemom]

119. Get the metaphor

Great reply! I'd expect DU followers to get this (unless trolls). I am still among those who would like President Obama to "man up" and confront some of theses idiots. If he really doesn't care if he's a one term president, now is the time. My respect for him has plummeted.

[Beartracks]

104. "their ideas, which have failed for 30 fucking years..."

Spot on. Why are Republican ideas even being considered as valid positions for the purpose of negotiations?

==========================

[chervilant]

171. + a gazillion million plus 50 million times infinity...

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

Teddy Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 (emphasis mine)

I find it disheartening that so many of our fellow DUers are bent on vilifying those of us who voice our concerns about Obama's 'leadership.' This tendency to denigrate those of us who are questioning Obama's performance reminds me of a rather interesting subtext to Obama's controversial record, to whit:

Recently, Obama admiringly quoted St. Ronnie, during whose administration this nation's massive economic train wreck first occurred. Ronald Reagan spent more than EVERY other president before him COMBINED. Our country saw its first trade deficit EVER during Reagan's reign of terror. Does anyone else remember how the intractable Ronnie Raygun irrevocably damaged unions when he fired the air traffic controllers? Does anyone else remember how he embraced and promoted Uncle Miltie's catastrophic economic creed?

The uber wealthy corporatists, who installed Reagan in office for their express purposes, grew ever MORE wealthy and powerful during his tenure. So, WHAT is it that Mr. Obama admires about Mr. Reagan?

How about this patronizing little sound bite from Mr. Obama during the Debt Ceiling Kabuki Theater:

Now, every family knows that a little credit card debt is manageable. But if we stay on the current path, our growing debt could cost us jobs and do serious damage to the economy.

Really? Setting aside for now the fact that the uber wealthy have not been asked to make sacrifices like those expected of the vast hoi polloi, Mr. Obama needs to use the correct tense when discussing job losses and serious damage to our economy--especially NOW that the wrecked engine of our economy is FINALLY grinding to a halt. We are already witness to the relentless crumbling of this global economy, quite the logical outcome of decades of unfettered hedonism from the disaster capitalists.

What say you about this, from our Paternalistic POTUS:

"We must eat our peas."

Really, Mr. President? How presumptuous to use peas (a most delicious vegetable) as an analogy for the austerity measures shit sandwich we're expected to swallow (we, the hoi polloi, NOT the uber wealthy).

Actually, Mr. Obama pegged the meter on condescension when he asserted that "YOU progressives" view the glass as "half empty" (Cenk did a great commentary on this which was recently posted here on DU). Like SO many other jobless, soon-to-be-homeless citizens in our beleaguered nation, I DON'T need Mr. Obama's condescension; I need a *JOB.*

Which brings me to this final observation:

Obama's appointment of Arne Duncan as SecEd, ALONE, put a huge question mark in my mind about his integrity. Then, his casual dismissal of protesting teachers as 'resistant to change' provided an accurate, if disheartening, picture of his attitude toward a profession that is VENERATED in nations that excel at educating their citizenry. How many teachers (firefighters, union workers) support him now?

Mr. Obama (and his sycophants) can ignore our anger, or he can hear our concerns. Dismissing us as whiners, malcontents, or pathetically misinformed is both disingenuous and disrespectful, and it will NOT help us save this nation.

[lumpy]

194. Speaking of 'nipping at his heels', people on this forum do a

damn good job sniping at Obama's heels. Very helpful in showing no confidence in our president; this sort of sniping does not one bit of good, the Republicans are loving it. To quote Geo.W. Bush " say it enough times it bcomes reality" or something to that effect.
You say "punch them in the f***ing mouth" out of one side of your mouth and in the other side you say"if he just ignored them......". What should it be? That really makes sense, doesn't it.

[Ikonoklast]

48. Obama calls the House Republicans late at night and asks them to treat him like shit.

He brings it on himself.

He secretly *wants* to be vilified, and enables the political opposition in every way he can to do so.














It amazes me what some people here post, and what I just posted is just as stupid.

[Major Hogwash]

90. President Obama uses the Batphone for that shit.

The one that has a direct connection to McCain.

President Obama calls him up at 3 AM every single day of the week and says, "Hey, old man, it's 3 AM, and here I am, ready to take that call, and there you are, snoring with your lucky rocks arranged under your fluffy pillow."

And then he chuckles as McCain screams into the dark, and then he hangs up.
Obama has an umlimited number of minutes on his Batphone plan, too.

LoL

[RaleighNCDUer]

165. Now THAT'S a funny image!

:evilgrin:

[dionysus]

139. i hear he hates christmas, too!

;)

[Proud Liberal Dem]

6. 1st President

to have agree to massive spending cuts before debt ceiling raised........1st President to have to come up with spending cuts before disaster relief gets approved.......etc........basically, the Republicans (and the media) have invented an entirely new rule book for President Obama. *ugh* :banghead: :puke:

[wndycty]

8. Yup

:kick:

[emulatorloo]

11. Republicans and their enablers, the MSM

[Proud Liberal Dem]

31. I will bet every last red penny

that the next Republican POTUS will NOT be held to any of these standards. :puke:

[Supersedeas]

36. the media is completely complicit in this

[Myrina]

129. .. they didn't invent the rule book, they just knew we was a pussy ...

... and have taken advantage of his inability/refusal to take a stand at every turn.

[valerief]

12. Racism, through and through. nt

[treestar]

14. Amen

It's so obvious.

[win_in_06]

21. B**** slapped right out the box.

Not a good start to September.

[my2sense]

22. K & R

It's just a matter of time before they openly call him the "n" word. The rest of the world probably thinks we are all batshit crazy.

[graywarrior]

24. !

Same here.

[JoeyT]

27. First president to be accused of lying about what religion he belongs to, as far as I know.

There may have been another, but if there was I don't recall it.

[dsc]

35. thomas jefferson

was accused of being an aethiest when he was a deist.

[JoeyT]

101. Ah, I stand corrected. n/t

[great white snark]

28. Indeed.

Many firsts for this President.

[jenmito]

30. It's disgustingly obvious. n/t

[NYC_SKP]

32. Put me down...

...for a kick and a rec.

Sick of the shit.

:patriot:

[ZombieHorde]

33. The first claim is true -1st Black President- the second claim is false,

the third claim I think was debunked by another DUer, I don't know about the fourth.

[Ter]

51. That was me 3 months ago

Somehow people forget Clinton.

[SkyDaddy7]

34. All of that & most on DU hate him as well!

Republicans NEVER turn on their own like many have turned on Obama...SAD!

Oh well, only a year away from total Republican control so I guess everyone will be happy then once Obama gets what he deserves. :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[Union Scribe]

75. So...we should be more like...Republicans...

Good plan.

[SkyDaddy7]

116. YES, we should in some ways...

Especially when it comes to being united as one...The Republicans thrive on splitting the Democrats into factions because it is so easy to do. This is probably our biggest weakness. The Republicans call us whining cry babies & one must wonder why & if it has a bit of truth to it?

The Republicans understand if you remain united & continue chipping away little by little eventually you get everything you want. Which they have been doing for 30+ years & their efforts & PATIENTS have brought them many many victories! On the other hand many in the Democratic Party go nuts when what they want is not accomplished in two years or less despite the many things we wanted that did get passed. They seem to think it is better to push policy changes that have no chance of passing & get nothing rather than take want you can a little at a time.

Oh yeah, & running primary candidates against a sitting Democratic POTUS or a third party candidate...Those ideas have done wonders for our party & the country! :sarcasm:

...But Reagan & "W" & the Republican Party sure did benefit!

[Chipper Chat]

153. If the dems don't get their s*** together this is what we'll get:

President - Rick Perry
V.P. - Chris Christie

Senate Majority Leader - Mitch McConartist
Speaker - Boner ad nauseum
Attorney General - Ken Cuccinelli
Secretary of State - Eric Cantor
Secretary of Defense - Lindsay Graham
Secretary of the Interior - Michele Bachmann
Secretary of the Treasury - Louie Gohmert
Secretary of Agriculture - Jan Brewer
Secretary of Energy - Sarah Palin
Secretary of Labor - Scott Walker
Secretary of Commerce - Rick Scott
Secretary of Education - Mike Pence
Secretary of Health & Human Services - Tom Coburn
Secretary of Homeland Security - Rudy Giuliani

Chief of Staff - Roger Ailes
Pres. Perry's Press Secretary - Sean Hannity
Head of the FCC - Rush Limbaugh

now THIS IS SCARY ENOUGH to make you wanna go out and campaign for Obama's re-election.

[SkyDaddy7]

178. You are 100% correct & HELL YES ITS SCARY! But...

We are a bunch of crybabies who get all pissed off if the President does not do what they want when they want it. The Republicans understand American politics much better than we do as a party...It is SAD to watch!

Maybe we will come to our senses here in the next few months but who knows.

[lumpy]

197. You speak the truth. Whether knowingly or not, some people

on this forum are helping to split the party by continual sniping at Obama. This only ends up weakening the party and gives the Republican party ammunition by showing this as weakness.By showing confidence in the president it works to the benefit of the presidential agenda.

[iamthebandfanman]

134. Skydaddy7 isnt a real democrat. n/t

[SkyDaddy7]

177. FUCK OFF! nt.

[Chipper Chat]

192. I just put that dude on ignore.

One small step for returning civility to this website. :bounce:

[Bobbie Jo]

214. A drop in the bucket....nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

38. He wasn't "forced" to show his birth certificate, and he wasn't the first to be heckled during SOU.

This is from Media Matters...

• TED KOPPEL (ABC host): When the president talked about the bankruptcy of Social Security, there were clearly some Democrats on the floor who thought that that was taking it too far. And they did something that, apparently, no one at this table has ever heard before. They booed.

• JOHN ROBERTS (CBS White House correspondent): At a couple points in this address, it looked more like the British Parliament than the United States Congress. I've never heard the minority party shout at the president during the State of the Union address.

• JOE SCARBOROUGH (former U.S. representative (R-FL) and MSNBC host): After the Democrats booed and hissed, Republicans were on the floor saying, you know, we never once did that to Clinton. So every time he would talk about Social Security, the roars got a little louder. And they got behind their president.

• BOB BARR (former U.S. representative (R-GA) and CNN contributor): It will be a very, very difficult battle as we saw by the unprecedented and, I think, highly improper virtual booing of the president when he simply said that the system is going to be bankrupt and the time is now to fix it.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200502040014

[Skip Intro]

40. What? Are you trying to derail the "it's because he's black" argument with facts? Stop that! nt

[EffieBlack]

41. What would a discussion about race and racism be on DU

without folks jumping in to defend racists from any accusation that their behavior could possibly be based on race.

Sure as night follows day . . .

But it's interesting that this seems to be the ONLY issue that prompts you all to go out of your way to "derail" criticism of Republicans. Why does this one particular accusation stick in your craw so painfully that you feel compelled, time after time, to try to prove that it's inaccurate?

[cherokeeprogressive]

43. Very few inaccuracies go unchallenged on DU. Haven't you ever noticed that?

Why would you want this particular inacurracy to go unchallenged? Is it because no matter how inaccurate the OP is, it fits your worldview so it must be true?

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Empowerer]

77. Please point out where she - or anyone else - accused another DUer of being a racist in this thread

Please be specific.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Empowerer]

86. The fact that you can't point to any such accusation

after you insisted that people made it - undercuts your accusation. And claiming that it is "insinuated" means that either you are trying to be clever or you don't know what racism is.

One need not be a racist - or anything even close to it - to defend racists or deny racism. The latter happens all the time - and is often done by decent people for a variety of reasons - including fear, ignorance and discomfort with a difficult and painful issue.

The fact that you and others do this does not mean you are a racist - and pointing out that you do it is not an accusation that you are a racist. But it should cause you to step back and engage in some introspection about how you view this issue. It's unfortunate that, so far, you seem unable to do so but, instead, hurl accusations at those of us who ARE trying to address this issue.

[Union Scribe]

91. So many inane assumptions.

I do find it funny, though, that you're whining so hard about my "accusation" which has, I'd say, a HELL of a lot more merit than your bullshit downthread where you attempted to turn a poster saying Obama should toughen up to mean that they think all racism would be halted by doing so. Maybe I'm not the only one in need of some introspection.

[Karenina]

213. Your handle says so much...

And I do so admire you for your willingness to continue to engage, weil ich kann nicht mehr. It's just too awful and getting worse. It will get MUCH WORSE as the election approaches.

It's ALL on Obama in this moment as he needs no Congressional bullshit to decide on the Tar Sands. This is his trial by fire, in my view. He decides for da boyz whut brought him to the dance, or for die Bevölkerung whut elected him. I do not envy him.


Ich hab' FERTIG. It's a German joke, you wouldn't understand. :rofl::rofl::rofl:

:loveya:

Tante K.

[EffieBlack]

87. Where has another DUer been called a racist?

[Union Scribe]

89. A well-rehearsed game of DU race-baiting.

Your friends can pretend all day that if you don't say it then it isn't implied, but I've already seen enough of it to recognize it for exactly what it is. Don't bother telling me how you were just innocently inquiring about posters always defending racist GOPers over Obama. It doesn't play.

[EffieBlack]

92. I see -

Racist comments = valid criticism
Defending people who make racist comments = speaking the truth

Pointing out racist comments and calling into question the defense of people who make racist comments = "a well-rehearsed game of race-baiting."

Got it . . .

Interestingly, with each post, you are illustrating my point in greater and greater depth.

And, for the record - I'm not calling you a racist, nor do I think you are one. I just think you're overly defensive.

[AtheistCrusader]

105. Maybe it's just me, but when I go on a tear on an issue and blast something

and someone else comes back with a fact that invalidates one of my points, I usually thank them for the correction.

After all, I value accuracy. Maybe it's just me.

[Union Scribe]

113. Who the FUCK said "racist comments = valid criticism"

See when you make shit up like that, yeah I think you're definitely baiting people.

[Bobbie Jo]

215. No one SAID it....

It's demonstrated frequently. That you presume to tell an AA that they don't know racism when they see it is pure arrogance.

Who the FUCK indeed.

Calling it "baiting" and "making shit up" is offensive. But you probably knew that. This veiled shit is pathetic....

[Supersedeas]

205. self delete

[EffieBlack]

46. self-delete

[totodeinhere]

59. You are so right my friend. Inaccuracies will distract from our narrative and we will lose

credibility. And our enemies will come back to haunt us with those inaccuracies inadvertent though they might have been. Progressives have morality and truth on their side. They don't need to use inaccuracies to get their points across.

[Skip Intro]

44. "You all" - ? I simply value what is factual over what is not factual.

I am happy to join in the criticism of repukes when it is fact-based, and have done so here and elsewhere for more than a decade. However, I am just as quick to call out misrepresentations on any topic when I come across them. I've done a bit of that as well. This being a Democratic board, of course our Democratic president will be a main topic of discussion.

Don't know what else to tell you.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skip Intro]

49. Um, I was referencing the OP title. Not sure what you think is being spoken in volumes.

And as has been pointed out, several assertions in the OP are just not accurate.

If you are so inclined, feel free to search my prior posts to see if they meet your approval. I feel I ought to let you know, though, with all due respect, that I don't seek your appoval, or anyone else's, to speak my mind on this board within this board's rules.

[democrat2thecore]

62. You want it both ways

You want to be able to use the "it's because he's black" on damn near everything, while objecting to anyone pointing out that race has nothing to do with it when his actions would be just as maddening if he were white, green or purple.

Were all of your objections to Bush because he was white? It's a very slippery slope.

You can't have it both ways.

[Empowerer]

66. I don't think anyone is claiming that "all of the objections" against President Obama are based on

race - but anyone who cannot see that a significant amount of the opposition to him IS based on his race is either blind or ignorant. And the consistent attempts to defend and deny the obviously racist motives and behavior by some is very troubling, but particularly sad when it is done by so-called Democrats.

The fact that ALL opposition to Obama is not racist does not mean that SOME opposition to him is racist - and THAT racist opposition is what this and many other threads are attempting to discuss and dissect. Yet, without fail, whenever that topic comes up, certain people immediately jump in to object, offer instances in which white people were subjected to bad treatment and accuse those of us trying to have the discussion of unfairly bringing up race.

I can't help but think that some of those who engage in these tactics for some reason believe that the fact that any accusation of racism against anyone is somehow an accusation against THEM. It's a rather bizarre phenomenon, but not an unusual one, since I've seen it play out frequently here and elsewhere.

So let's be clear about a few things. Some opposition to President Obama IS racist. Pointing to opposition against him that may not be based on race does not "derail" that fact. Pointing to opposition to white politicians does not "derail" that fact. And claiming that anyone noting the racism in some of the opposition to the President wants to "use the 'it's because he's black' on damn near everything" does not "derail" this fact. It only means that you are either incapable of or unwilling to recognize the obvious.

[democrat2thecore]

70. There's no winning this one

It's a topic that is a no-win for anyone to even discuss. I happen to see MANY disagreements with the president - right here at DU - derailed because of some posters (a small group actually) who chime in and blame it all on the fact he's black. Where do we go from there? It's a no-win from then on.

[Empowerer]

71. And, without fail, ANY discussion of the racism that IS directed at the president is derailed

by DUers who jump in and insist that we are claiming that ALL criticism of the President is based on his race - something that I have yet to see anyone do.

[ZombieHorde]

52. Your assertion is false. There have been many threads on DU claiming the Tea Party is racist,

and these threads have gone unchallenged.

The OP contains obvious falsehoods. Why would you want falsehoods to go unchallenged?

[totodeinhere]

56. Could it be because facts matter? n/t

[usaprogress]

142. Perhaps because...

We use racism and the race card is used WAY too much and nobody hears it anymore! Calling everything racism is like blaming Bush for everything bad since the beginning of time is so old! NOBODY HEARS IT ANYMORE!!! Eddie

[Township75]

120. Some DUer's just dont get it. They get all excited about something like the OP, but

if it isn't factual, you will look like an ass spewing it when you get outside of DU.

There is enough to attack republicans about without making up stuff.

[Ter]

50. Clinton was booed in January, 1995 during the SOTU

Also, what do you mean "1st President to be rejected by the GOD DAMNED Speaker of the House."?

[EffieBlack]

53. Booing is not heckling

[Ter]

54. Bullshit

If anything, it's worse.

[Major Hogwash]

85. How many years had Clinton been in office? This incident with the "you lie" was Obama's first

address to the joint session of Congress and it wasn't even an SOTU speech.

[AtheistCrusader]

106. AHAHAHAHAahahahaaa

Are you serious

[lynne]

61. During Bush's 2005 SOTU, he was booed and received shouts of "NO" -

- when he mentioned social security reform. Shouting "NO" during the SOTU is heckling.

Clinton in 1995 and Bush in 2005 should put an end to the "Obama was first to be heckled" myth. He wasn't even second.

Link for those who need to see it to believe it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBxmEGG71PM

[Empowerer]

63. If you don't see the difference between booing/"no" and shouting "You LIE" in the middle of the

President's speech . . . well . . .

[lynne]

65. There's little difference and neither side comes out looking innocent -

- in one case you've got one disrespectful idiot shouting "you lie". In the other case, you can hear numerous senators yelling "No" and booing. Given what Bush is saying at the time the "NO" is shouted, the translation is the same as "you lie" as they were implying that what he was saying wasn't truthful.

Neither party gets a pass on this exhibition of truly lousy manners and disrespect of the president. The bar for civility was lowered to snake-belly level years ago by both parties.

Attempting to re-write history and blame this disrespect on racial motives only brings that bar down to subterranean level.

[Ter]

68. +1 million

If you want to go back even further, while I don't have proof such as a link, I'd bet the ranch that many more presidents were heckled 100-200 years ago. It was much worse then.

[Major Hogwash]

88. How many years had Bush been in office by then? How many wars did he start by then

based on lies?

There's a huge difference between who deserves to be booed and who doesn't.
Your post is a perfect example of "false equivalency".

[chervilant]

174. OMG!!

The bar for civility was lowered to snake-belly level years ago by both parties.

Exceptionally well put. I hope you don't mind if I use that awesome quote.

[vaberella]

111. Obama was booed too, you know. So what's your point. Clinton wasn't called a liar or a murderer

or something of that nature during the SOTU. But Obama was booed and called a liar.

[Ter]

170. I guess you never heard of B-1 Bob Dornan

He called Clinton a baby killer and draft dodger. But if he didn't say "liar" I guess it's not heckling in your mind. Clinton was hated just as much, but people like to play the race card. Obama could be whiter than a Swedish/Norwegian chick and the Tea Baggers would still hate him. Same thing with Bush. We all don't like him, and he's white.

[truedelphi]

187. All I know is that most of the fifty million people on Food Stamps

The chronically Long term unemployed, the teen who is pregnant but cannot afford to get to an abortion clinic, (and if she gets there, might be bombed), those seeking PTSD treatment at VA hospitals, all of these people would be glad (even for a day) to be, a relatively young, healthy, well off, black guy living in the WH who has a job, a great life, health insurance, and doesn't worry that his kids, unlike theirs, will be molested by strangers while they spend the night in a homeless shelter.

If I were President for a day, I wouldn't find too much of it that hard, and heckling is something any of us who have worked at a normal job have experienced 24/7.

The only part of his job that would be hard for me to deal with is knowing I have to take my orders from Big Oil, Big Military, Big Finance, Big Insurers, Big Pharma and Big Pesticide Concerns.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Major Hogwash]

58. It's the price we were willing to pay to have the 1st Black President of the United States.

No one said this was going to be easy.

History will record our generation as the greatest American generation because we broke the color barrier to the leader of the free world far earlier than most people had ever predicted.

This is the price we must pay, and we were willing to pay it gladly.
And I will pay it again, gladly, of my own free will.
I will not look back with regret, but with pride.
We did what they said could never get done -- we elected a Black President.
And not just a Black President, but one of the best Presidents we've had in the last 50 years at least.
Maybe in the last 100 years.

[democrat2thecore]

64. Sad. So, the most important thing to you about our generation

"History will record our generation as the greatest American generation because we broke the color barrier to the leader of the free world far earlier than most people had ever predicted."

I wonder what MLK would have thought about a statement like that? We're the greatest generation because we elected a man with black skin color? Issues matter - skin color does not. Or, at least, it shouldn't. Some have made it damn near impossible to disagree with this president without being painted like some kind of David Duke. Sad.

[Empowerer]

67. No one has "made it damn near impossible to disagree with this president without being painted like

some kind of David Duke." That's a ridiculous accusation.

But the insistence by you and others to whine and moan because you are being SO maligned because some other white person who acts speaks and acts like a racist is called out for speaking and acting like a racist speaks volumes about attitudes and sensitivities.

I have not seen ANYONE accuse you or anyone else of being a bigot or behaving like some kind of David Duke because you may disagree with the President. I DO see - over and over and over again - certain people in this forum viscerally react with knee-jerk regularity whenever anyone even SUGGESTS that some other white person's behavior toward the president may be racist - regardless how blatant and ugly that behavior may be.

The problem is not with the fact that some of us are pointing out the obvious. The question is why you and others take this one particular accusation against a small sliver of white Republicans with backward attitudes and nasty mouths so personally. Is it some form of modern-day tribalism? Circling the wagons? A case of race trumping political differences?

[democrat2thecore]

72. I think....

I think that the problem is that what one sees as racism - another sees as a disagreement with a president who happens to be black. There are some here who make a knee-jerk reaction and label opposition on issues as 'racist.' Are there some Democratic critics of this president who could possibly be racist? Probably. Who knows what's in somebody's heart? This is an imperfect world. But I don't see that at DU. Instead, what I see is race being used by the president's supporters when progressive opposition to his corporatist policies start to rankle. Then, we are told we just can't accept "the obvious" that so much of this and that is because of skin color. I just don't believe that at DU. I don't see it and while it may be a no-win deal to call people out on it - I've done it because I fail to see the racism that certain posters here seem to see everywhere. Believe me, if I actually saw people at DU making racist posts - I would be furious! But again, and I'm being as honest as I can, I don't see that at DU.

[Empowerer]

74. I'm not talking about Democratic criticism of the president

I'm talking about people who jump in to defend Republicans against any accusation of racism.

Which is a very strange phenomenon on a Democratic board. Republicans are accused of all manner of things - accurately and inaccurately - with nary a peep from anyone here. Yet when a Republican is accused of racism, certain DUers fall all over themselves to defend them and side with them against the Democrats on DU who are pointing out this racism. It is really interesting, albeit troubling, to me to see these people so insistent on defending Republicans against any charge of racism.

For example, a while back, people here were actually defending and trying to explain away Pat Buchanan's "your boy" comment, the "tar baby" accusation, etc. It was really bizarre.

And, fyi, this OP does not accuse Democrats of racism. To the contrary, it is pointing out how Republicans are treating this president. Yet, as usual, some DUers immediately step in to argue that this none of this behavior is based on race and then snidely and snarkily turn on those of us who are pointing it out, wrongly accusing us of insisting that ALL criticism of the President is racist and claiming that it is WE who are the problem, not the backward-thinking, bigoted Republicans who are engaging in racist dog-whistle politics.

As I noted, I NEVER see DUers jump to the defense of Republicans in any other context - yet when the issue is race, some fall all over themselves defending Republicans. It's as if they fear some kind of collective guilt and believe that if a white person is accused of racism, it means that THEY, too are being called racist. However, if a white Republican is called a facist, these folks don't jump in to argue that they aren't REALLY a facist, or go out of their way trying to prove the inaccuracy of the claim. And they don't seem to be worried that THEY, too are being called a facist.

Yet, the accusation of racist against ANY white person, regardless how far apart politically they may be, triggers a defensiveness that is rather fascinating to behold.

[democrat2thecore]

82. Okay....I may have misunderstood...

We could have had this conversation over coffee and it wouldn't have lasted 30 seconds. The Internet - love it and hate it. It's not your fault, it's more mine because I didn't pick-up on the real topic here. No, I would have to agree with you that defending those comments, like the ones you pointed out, would be defending certain Republicans who are full of bigotry and all that goes with it. I'm sorry if I caused confusion. It certainly wouldn't be the first time. In context now...I agree with you completely.

[eilen]

130. I can heartily affirm that my objections to many of Obama's policies

have absolutely nothing to do with his appearance.

The behavior of the Republicans, particularly Tea Party politicians at this date is hand in hand with their rhetoric. These are radical arrogant fanatics emboldened by the oligarchic treasure chest we are dealing with and expecting them to behave with decorum is like expecting a toddler to behave as an adult. To be surprised by their rude, boorish and outlandish claims and statements is to be unrealistic. Look at who you are talking about. The same crazy people who support Palin, Bachman, Rand Paul, and that freak from Florida Allan West.

But to be focused on them is to be willfully mislead. They are the sideshow designed to grab the lights.

Obama does not need to call and ask for a date. He just has to announce when he will be appearing before congress. Don't give them an opportunity to turn you down. His efforts to be "reasonable" have created another predictable sequence of events as his efforts to "bargain."

[onpatrol98]

60. The hoopla about the speech date is just nutty...

We've waited patiently until all of their vacations to end...Congress and the White House. And, now they want to bicker over September 8th versus September 7th. Why not give the speech today? Sit in the Oval Office today and talk to the American People. Skip the Congress people props and the pomp and circumstance. Just give the speech already. I am curious about it. I mean, if it's purpose is to address an urgent struggling economy, why write a letter asking to give it in front of that crowd NEXT WEEK!!!

Shucks...half of DU could've given a jobs speech 3 years ago. And, I am an ardent Obama president. I do believe he is the best we could have hoped for out of the last crop of potential candidates. And, that he'll be the best out any potential candidates to emerge in the next cycle.

But, skip the politics of a speech. Just say it, Mr. President! Look into the camera and tell us how you're going to help us.

[SixthSense]

69. first President to be put on mute at halftime

[Empowerer]

73. Anyone who thinks a football game is more important than what the President has to say about jobs

well . . .

[SixthSense]

147. He's had three speeches in the past month on jobs

Said nothing in any of them

why should we expect something different this time around?

[Thrill]

78. Because he allows it to happen

Got to toughen up

[Empowerer]

79. You're right - if black people were just tougher, racism would go away

:sarcasm:

[Union Scribe]

83. Please be specific and point out where the poster said that. nt

[vaberella]

110. If Obama allows that to happen then we allow ourselves to be mistreated.

This is regardless of race. How would you explain the posters point? How does Obama allow it to happen? If he allows it, then there is a way to stop it. I can't see one. People will hate him regardless, people will see him for the color of his skin regardless, people will marginalize him regardless. How does he allow them to do that? It makes no sense as an argument.

[handmade34]

84. sing it!

[Harmony Blue]

93. I am with you!

President Obama of the United States of America is being dragged through the mud and some wonder why we are outraged?

[Name removed]

94. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Presidentcokedupfratboy]

109. Boner

Is all about the politics. Not governing or the people.

[JohnnyRingo]

112. K&R

Thanx for posting

[DontTreadOnMe]

114. 1st President to put Social Security on the table

and a few appointments on the Super Committee that are putting SS on the table as well.

C'mon, lets me see how you DEFEND that!

[Firebrand Gary]

115. Well , when you put it like that.

I totally agree.

[The Backlash Cometh]

117. Does this now mean we can do it to them?

[webDude]

118. About the birth certificate, know anything about Photoshop or Illustrator?

I wanted so hard to prove the birth certificate wrong, I campaigned for Barack. If you know about these programs, you can look where the fold of the binder makes the "copy" bend, on the left side of the image. There is text at this point that does not bend. How is this possible? I do not know why it was produced this way, I do know what I have just told you is true, zi saw it from a file downloaded from whitehouse.gov . Some of you will kill the messenger. If you do, you will be deluding yourself, but go ahead, I know it's hard to accept, I did not until I saw it with my own eyes.

[DaveJ]

135. You are mistaken

The bend you see is so minute that it would not cause the text to visibly warp in that area.

To see this, zoom in and look at the black line above each character to see how much the paper really is bent.

Where the line is straight the text is straight. Where the line is bent the text is bent. There is nothing out of proportion.

[Hissyspit]

145. Oh, good god...

Get a fucking life. :eyes:

[grantcart]

191. you are arguing with a guy who named himself webdude

800 posts in 10 years

webdude translates as 'shit stirrer' in Malay.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

121. DU should be sick of it, too! But all we get, day in and day out, is bashing of the president

and the Democratic Party. They bash him FIRST and NOT the Republican Party!

Why don't Democrats go after Republicans? Why do we kill our own first?!??!?!

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TatonkaJames]

123. Why isn't Boehner more concerned with the Billions lost in Iraq by Bush

It's all politics, and an attempt to return to our founding fathers. You know, those rich, white, aristocracy that ruled and made up the rules;
"All men were created equal." EXCEPT for their slaves. We're a country based in hypocrisy.

[chervilant]

176. AND,

except for women...

AND, except for indigenous tribes...

AND, except for undocumented workers...

AND, except for homeless people...

Indeed, we are a most mendacious bunch of hypocrites. But, then, most of us have been fed a steady diet of propagandized pablum, promoting uber zealous patriotism. Few of us have pursued resources that document this nation's lengthy tenure as the Big Bully in the Global Sandbox.

[Faith No More]

124. And first "Democrat" President

to cave to every repug demand he's faced with. I'M SICK OF THIS SHIT!!!!!

[EffieBlack]

137. That's "Democratic" president

But your choice of words is noted ...

[lumpy]

200. And I am damned sick of people who are helping the

Republicans by driving the Democratic party into splitting factions. This is the best ammunition the Repubs can get by claiming a Dem party split and this is happening because some ignorant Dems are claiming Obama caves in, he's weak and worse. Too bad some here cannot see how destructive negative criticism can be without positive imput. The best that can be done for Obama is having confidence in his presidency and expressing support.

[Myrina]

127. This sealed the seal on the deal - I'm disgusted & done with him.

Seriously. "Yes John, I'll change my plans for you. I may be freakin' PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA but I'm flexible and I do really like the Republicans alot, so I'll let you guys walk all over me once again in this very public way. I'm ok with humiliation, really."


O. M. G. :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[EffieBlack]

131. What response do YOU think he should have given?

President Obama: "No, John - if I can't speak on 8:00 on Wednesday, I won't come at all?"

Speaker Boehner: "Fine with me."

DUers, MSM and Republicans (who are becoming virtually indistinguishable on this issue): "President played ONCE AGAIN by Boehner. Boehner and the Republicans didn't want the President to give this major jobs speech on their turf and he played right into their hands. WHAT WAS HE THINKING?!?!?!"

[Enrique]

133. but it's only a day difference

I don't see much humiliation here, unless we build it up in our minds.

Do we elect presidents to go to battle over symbolic things like this? I hope not.

[lumpy]

201. Obama doesn't need friends and supporters like you. If all

one has to give is negative criticism, better to be off with ya'. And this Democratic forum as well.Wonk wonk.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

136. Don't make me run the anti-Jefferson cartoon again.

I'm warning you.

I mean it!

You were warned.

Anti-Obama billboard raises eyebrows - Caricatures are racist and homophobic, local Dems say

"There is no new thing under the sun."

Is that all? This is a cariacture of the sainted Jefferson from over two hundred years ago.

The prairie dog sickened at the sting of the hornet or a diplomatic puppet exhibiting his deceptions

Summary: James Akin's earliest-known signed cartoon, "The Prairie Dog" is an anti-Jefferson satire, relating to Jefferson's covert negotiations for the purchase of West Florida from Spain in 1804. Jefferson, as a scrawny dog, is stung by a hornet with Napoleon's head into coughing up "Two Millions" in gold coins, (the secret appropriation Jefferson sought from Congress for the purchase). On the right dances a man (possibly a French diplomat) with orders from French minister Talleyrand in his pocket and maps of East Florida and West Florida in his hand. He says, "A gull for the People."

I post this picture every time someone says, of politics, that it has never before been this bad or that it has hit a new low. As you can see, that is not the case.

The best comment on the subject was written over two thousand years ago.

Ecclesiastes 1-9

The thing that has been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

[Raschel]

140. Remember when schools didn't want to allow the children to hear his speech? Just terrible.

I watched the President wade through a crowd of old White veterans, the other day. If anyone here who isn't Black thinks that isn't tough, I don't know what to say.

He has had his plate full with racism, and is handling it beautifully. Then dump all of the disasters and economic mess on the plate as well.

I am with the other poster who says they will be bashing the republicans first!

[stubtoe]

163. Well said. n/t

[liberal N proud]

141. here here

[Wait Wut]

143. So am I...so am I.

The level of disrespect is disgusting.

[syberlion]

144. When I am in the voting booth and see an (R) after the name

I will be thinking (R)=Racist because they've shown me who they are. That's the mind-set we have to get out there into the general population and they are doing a great job of helping us to get that out there.

They deserve a special place in history, the trash can.

[frylock]

150. forced? rejected?

get a grip. knu.

[Rockholm]

151. The President should NOT give the pukes a transcript of his speech beforehand.

Why should he give these pricks a heads up to what he is going to say, only to have them trample on his speech?
Let them wing it.

[bertman]

156. . . . first President to have the government shut down by Republicans, 1st President

to be impeached for a blow job, 1st President to have his daughter called 'ugly', 1st President to have his wife called a lesbian . . .

Get used to it. It's called right-wing tactics. Or maybe you're not old enough to remember the Kennedy years, the Carter years, or the Clinton years. If so, I forgive you for your youthful ignorance.

[Name removed]

157. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jankyn]

158. That's it, all right.

There was plenty of animosity toward Clinton--in fact, the hatred was downright pathological, and less about his positions on issues than about him personally.

That said, the level of hatred, loathing and disrespect leveled at President Obama (including the active lack of respect for the office itself) is worse than I've seen in my lifetime. I can think of no reason other than the president's race (particularly given the number of outright racist attacks on him).

[alp227]

184. when did the Democrats ever not let Bush give a joint address

during the last 2 years of the Bush presidency (2007, 2008)?

Or Reagan whenever they had the majority in congress?

Repukes = lowlifes

[deacon]

159. K + R

[davidwparker]

162. All true. But, maybe there can be a sliver lining. Let's hope

"goodhair" has a good showing and going forward, secures the nomination.

We should want O to run against him and then, poison the well for Jebby 2016.

Also, maybe O can become discussed with the GOP and work around them, as they are not interested in working with him. What was that Mitch McChinless has said and repeated?

[JDPriestly]

166. First president to refuse to fight back.

That is the problem.

[jwirr]

167. 1st President to get the HCR through that every Democratic president

since FDR have been trying to do. Maybe not perfect but one giant step.


I am hoping that a lot of people are getting the message that the rethugs are obstructionists and have stopped everything that we need.

[Cigar11]

172. Sad

I’ve finally stopped being amazed at anything the Republicans do after the Debt Ceiling fiasco. The GOP made it perfectly clear for everyone to understand; their only purpose it to make President Obama a 1 Team President, buy any means. Their agenda comes first and the country last.

In a small way, I wish they could get “their country back” exactly the way they left it. But unfortunately, the rest of us have to live in their screwed-up world. It’s sad, but I’ve never been more embarrass for our country than I have been over the last three years. It’s a no win situation; until the last of these Dinosaurs finally die off, we’re stuck in their Quicksand and Tar-Pit.

It’s obvious to anyone with eyes, what is really going on here.

[HughBeaumont]

173. Fourth president to continue laissez-fail Fuck-over-nomics to the detriment of the USA.

EXPIRE THE GODDAMNED TAX CUTS!! No hostage situations, no caves!!! Start making these wealthy pricks give BACK!!!!

[Scurrilous]

175. K & R

:thumbsup:

[stockholmer]

181. all there needs to be to get so many 'unhappy progressives' back on the Obama corporatist bus is the

whiff of racism from the utter fucking fools (indeed many ARE racist) on the other side. Are you so easily distracted and bought-off intellectually?

The legacy of slavery and racism is truly America's curse, on SO MANY levels, and do not think for a second that the systemic controllers don't know this and use it as sheep-herding tool for EVERYBODY.

What a tragic 400+ year-long play some evil bard writ large upon the continent you call home.

[SemperEadem]

182. it's the OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY that he is allowing to be disrespected

it just happens to be occupied right now by a man of color; however, the fact that this "lese majeste" is being allowed to take place at all is what is appalling and galling, IMO. No other president before him allowed the office to be so disrespected. As bad as Nixon was, no one threw shit at the office. Only bush had a shoe thrown at it, but he deserved that one.

[Cigar11]

186. Don’t be fooled …

it’s not the Office of The Presidency that their anger and rage is pointed it.

[otohara]

183. First to be called "tar baby"

Republican's are fucking assholes

[Initech]

199. I have never seen such vile, disgusting, outright hatred for a leader like the GOP toward Obama.

[Raschel]

216. I agree, and it seems that President Obama is one of the few to exhibit any dignity in Washington.

Funny since bigots try to portray the Black man as unstable and angry. He is dignified and respectful. He is thoughtful, he doesn't shoot from the lip.

Funny since bigots try to portray the Black man as unstable and angry.

Republicans want to feed incivility with people like Trump, Christie, Palin, Bachman. They want mob rule, like the KKK.

They think Christie telling people to "get the hell off the beach" and mocking people about their tans is being a real leader. They call it not politically correct.

Well I think it's crass, low class, rude, and not befitting of leadership.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

202. I've one more thing to add: How soon DU forgets that Obama ran on the concept

of civility. DU, liberals, progressives, Democrats, Independents want him to get down and dirty, angry and mean. But, that's not in his nature.

We all knew this on the campaign trail, baffled by how he allowed McCain and Palin to diss him over and over again, and yet, he kept his cool.

Republicans know this about his personality, so they keep prodding, pricking him with needles in the hopes that he'll finally get so frustrated that he turns into "The Angry Black Man" that they want him to be.

The guy can't win for losing. If he finally gets angry, there will be a segment of the population who won't believe it because they know that it's uncharateristic of him.

If he doesn't get angry, the accusations of weakness will continue here on this forum and elsewhere.

Nothing he does will ever be good enough, and this is something that most black Americans have to deal with on a daily basis. Our character is constantly questioned. Our intelligence and qualifications are put under scrutiny. The bar continues to be raised to impossible heights. Nothing is ever good enough. And, the double standards are astonishing!!! It's really sad.

I've seen so much subtle and very explicit racism in the last three years, and coming from Democrats, particularly during the height of the 2008 primary battles, was enough to make be become an Independent and leave the party altogether.

But, I am a fighter, and I will never allow a message board or the racism in this country deter me from doing what I need to do to make a change.

Change begins with me. Not with some president. I am not a Teabagger or Republican who is constantly in search and in need of some authoritative figure to "lead" me down a certain path. I understand that in order for there to be real change, it will require a lot of hard work, commitment, AND PATIENCE!!!

People expected this man to come into office, snap his fingers, and change everything in less than 2 or 3 years! I don't care what anyone says! To assume that comprehensive changes requires 1, 2, or 3 years is absurd!! It is unreasonable and unrealistic! It is naive and childish. The president NEVER promised that change would come quickly. Never before in the history of our great Republic has substantive social or political change occurred overnight! They constantly project their wants, beliefs, and all their desires onto him. It's unfair. No one person should be forced to shoulder all of that. I don't give a damn who he is!

So yes, I will continue to fight for what I believe is right and against what I believe is wrong. And yes, I do believe that the utter disrespect and downright hatred of this man who had the audacity to run for the presidency (he should have stayed in his place!) is palatable here on DU and all over the country. But, still I have hope and will not allow this constant 24-7 negativity to deter me from doing what I need to do to battle the Republican Party in my local and state area politics and at the congressional and presidential levels.

[wndycty]

204. Plus 5.5 million

:kick:

[EffieBlack]

217. Beautiful. Thank you!

[Supersedeas]

208. First President to be required to take the oath of office a second time, because

the Right Wing Chief Supreme Court Justice accidentally (on purpose) flubbed the lines.

[Amimnoch]

211. The whole birther thing pisses me off.

First, there is the spirit of which the natural born citizen clause was included in the first place... to keep foreign Aristocrats from coming over and using vast wealth and influence to "purchase" the US.

Second, how many presidents have lived abroad as ambassadors at some point in the 14 years prior to their election to the office of the President? Funny no one ever decided to jump on THAT part of the clause.. but really, who here.. for one friggin second believes that if President Obama had been an Ambassador at any point in the 14 years prior to his election, that the same idiots would have made the same clamour?

For fucks sake, taken literally, John Adams, the 2nd president of the country wasn't eligable!!! He'd spent most of the 14 years prior to his presidency in France, and England!

[Beacool]

219. Oh please, the Clintons were called far worse.

And the president was impeached over lying about a B.J.

:eyes: