jump to last post 1-16 of 16 discussions (229 posts)

what is THIS VITRIOLIC AND VENOMOUS hatred of President Obama

  1. gmwilliams profile image86
    gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago

    http://s4.hubimg.com/u/8314879.jpg
    President Obama has been the subject of blatant and hostile disrespect.  To so many people, President Obama seems to do nothing right.....well, at least in THEIR eyes.  It seems that President Obama has been the MOST DISRESPECTED president thus far.  We may disagree with the President's policies but to consistently attack and demoralize his capabilities and character is going A BIT TOO FAR. Never have the presidential office been so flagrantly disrespected as it is currently.    President Obama is remedying the socioeconomic fiasco that was created by the previous president, George W. Bush.  President Obama may have made some errors but so did every president.  Let's discuss this.
    Here are the links...........
    http://youtu.be/4SXiEbRuFxw
    http://youtu.be/8hUe2wMxT_A
    http://youtu.be/kuSiz4IDveU

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It's debateable whether he's the most disrespected President.
      Heck, it's debateable whether he's really even a valid President!

      But indeed he is the most vocally disrespectFUL President.
      Don't blame citizens for the Office being disrespected.   Obama has accomplished that all by his little lonesome.

      From the White House and from public podiums he has spoken vitriol and venom upon American citizens and upon conservative members of Congress.   He seems to not even get what a President is supposed to be-----a leader of free people,  a defender of our Constitution,  an unbiased defender of civil rights for ALL, not just "his people" as his crony Eric Holder and others have called blacks,   a champion of maintaining American sovreignty,  a responsibility-taker, and on and on;   all things that he is incapable of doing or unwilling to do.

      The snake spews venom.   And yet you would defend him and accuse everyone else.

      1. 60
        retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        +

      2. Seth Winter profile image85
        Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        +

      3. WuldUStilRemebrMe profile image60
        WuldUStilRemebrMeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Just the Kristians!  Damn them!

      4. Laura Schneider profile image92
        Laura Schneiderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        On what grounds would he not be a valid President?!? He was born in the U.S. (a "natural born citizen") and is of the proper age as of his first term--that's all you need to be to be a valid president, aside from the majority of the electoral votes. Are you debating the number of electoral votes? We could debate the same with more accuracy for many presidents of our country, in recent years with John Kerry and especially in the early days of elections before technology and communication made cheating the system harder for political parties to do directly. Personally, I think the problem is that the electoral colleges all vote as a block, rather than dividing their votes to accurately represent their constituents.

    2. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I most certainly concur with your take on this, GW!

    3. MelissaBarrett profile image60
      MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      *Shrugs*

      There are a certain number of people that aren't happy unless they have something to complain about. They will invent it if necessary. They are also the ones that squawk the loudest. Certain media panders to the lowest common denominator. They use the media to spread their vitriol and the media uses them to line it's pockets.

      They are happy bedfellows.

      The rest of the world, we'll call them the "normals", are just fine living non-drama filled lives and actually contributing to society, having actual lives, and generally avoiding the squawkers...

    4. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Amen.

    5. Shawn McIntyre profile image86
      Shawn McIntyreposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I think Presidents Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy would disagree with this point.

      The problem is, the media in this country has become a circus; you have the far-right arguing with the far-left because that's what drives ratings. The media today has more in common with Professional Wrestling than it does with real Journalism.

    6. lone77star profile image92
      lone77starposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You've got to be kidding.

      Obama has betrayed his Oath of Office too many times to count. That, my dear friend, is TREASON.

      What's not to disrespect about a traitor?

      I was enthusiastically for Obama in 2008. I was gullible and bought his rhetoric. But then, when he gained office, all those sweet lies evaporated.

      I knew something was fishy about his presidency when he immediately received the Nobel Peace Prize. What? He hadn't done anything yet to merit that award. Something fish was going on.

      Peace? Obama attacked a country that had done nothing to America -- Libya. And instead of carrying out his promise, he had us stay in Iraq years longer. Plus, he escalated the war in Afghanistan, promising to extend it even after the supposed death of Osama.

      Transparency? Obama has escalated secrecy far more than Bush ever did (and I despised Bush).

      Signing statements. Correctly, Obama recognized them as "making law" which is not the province of the President. But then he proceeds to give us plenty of signing statements.

      On Gitmo prisoners, Obama said that they should stay there, even if found innocent! Now, try to tell me that you're an American (or even human) and still agree with that kind of madness.

      Books have already been written on the crimes of Obama, so I won't attempt to write one here.

      You need to look at the alternative media (all of it, because the corrupt government likely has their own fake "alternative" media, too). Ben Swann, The Young Turks, and (if you can stand him for more than a few minutes) Alex Jones. Then, do your own research, following the stories they give us.

      The Constitution is in tatters! That matters far more than anything you've talked about. If the Constitution goes, then America is crap! Just another Evil Empire with an empty soul.

      Perhaps the second most important point is that, first Bush, and now Obama, have accelerated US toward financial oblivion. Before 9/11, national debt was about $5 TRILLION. After Bush's 8 years, $10 Trillion! And after Obama's first 4 years, $16.7 Trillion! Accelerating! When that BUBBLE Bursts, the entire planet will be rocked and America will be Ground Zero. The Dollar will be Toilet Paper.

      Now, we just learned that the CIA finally admits its hand in deposing the Iranian leader in 1953. Making the world "safe for democracy" by destroying democracy in Iran. INSANITY!

      Obama is just a puppet of the Corporate Party Banksters and Military-Industrial Complex machine.

      He won't rail against the machine, because he knows what they did to JFK. If you don't know what I'm talking about, check out YouTube on E. Howard Hunt's deathbed confession to his son that he participated in the murder of our US President.

      You think your feeble financial gain under Obama is meaningful when the entire mountain of national debt is about to explode. Your pitiful gain will look like a drop in a mega-tsunami wave a mile high.

      Obama and his cronies will be safe in a government bunker while the White House burns.

      All because we let it happen.

    7. Laura Schneider profile image92
      Laura Schneiderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Respectfully, I disagree; I think the disrespect for the presidency, the office of the President of the United States, and of President Obama himself, and his/its limited capabilities with a factioned and fractious Congress has gone WAYYYY too far. The guy's not Superman, to go back in time to reverse the damage done in times past. He didn't solely elect or support this useless Congress that we, the people of the US, are tolerating, and he can't make laws: he's the Executive branch of the government, not the Legislative branch. And probably damn frustrated that most of us are too stupid to realize those basic facts and differences, and the fact that he didn't get us where we are today he's just trying (albeit with limited authority and success) to help -- armed usually only with rhetoric, since that's the limit to his law-making abilities: talking to Congress and the people -- mop up the disasters of prior presidents.

      Honestly, who (specific names, not general party names) would be able to do a better job given the circumstances of the Office when President Obama inherited it? Congress is too amorphous for people to comprehend, however, so they just blame the figurehead: who happens to be President Obama, but could easily be anyone in that office. Since everything's a mess, it must have something to do with him being black right? (WRONG!) Things were a mess long before President Obama took office; why aren't we vilifying the prior president(s) who got us into this disaster and yelling at our Congresspersons to get off their duffs, write a 1-topic bill, and get it passed. And then do it again. And again. Until things are better. And, it's our government, therefore OUR fault--we, the people of the US.

      1. freefogging profile image85
        freefoggingposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I agree....when Congress won't do their job, President Obama just has a harder time doing his. I believe Congress needs to get off their a**%#s and do the job they were hired for instead of wasting all their time trying to repeal "Obama Care" for the "millionth" time.
        You do realize that if he were able to run for office a third time, he would win again. People are not as stupid as the Repubs seem to think.

  2. Sychophantastic profile image82
    Sychophantasticposted 3 years ago

    The fact that you brought up the birther issue proves that you are idiot. 9 days into his presidency, Republicans were talking about his failed policies. That's certainly giving him a chance. Republicans in Louisiana blame him for Hurricane Katrina more than they blame Bush. That's stupidity for you.

    Study after study proves that Republicans and Fox news watchers are both less intelligent and misinformed, so there's really no use debating this issue. You can't discuss facts, logic, and science with idiots. They'll never understand it.

    1. 83
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Your statement seems a bit harsh.  I find it ironic that you want republicans to be less harsh on the POTUS, but then, this is how you talk to and about us.

    2. 60
      retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Bush who?  You mean the old guy who likes to jump out of planes on his birthday or the other old guy who likes to ride mountain bikes with wounded vets.  Bush who?  History starts now, leftists taught me that on MSNBC.

  3. 0
    Beth37posted 3 years ago

    Somebody broke out the thesaurus for this one.

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
      MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I'd be happy to send you a dictionary if you need it.

      1. 0
        Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Just the V section.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
          MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Sure... I assume your looking for the definition of vitriol.

          You'll find it on the page between vagient and vociferate.

          1. 0
            Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I was talking about the title of the thread Melissa... just a joke. Ive got a dictionary.

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I was almost certain you did.

              1. 0
                Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                It's the whole "online" thing.

            2. 61
              TheWizardofWhimsyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              It's a literary tool used for emphasis, and it's called alliteration.

  4. maxoxam41 profile image79
    maxoxam41posted 3 years ago

    GM, can't you see the inadequacy between the promise and the result? I can. Obama is nothing else but a puppet therefore the hatred. The people believed in him and he delivered nothing to be proud of or to remember him with.

    1. Quilligrapher profile image89
      Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Hello Max. Nice of you to post a comment.

      I think it is really pathetic that some people consider themselves qualified to criticize the President of the United States when they actually know so little about what has been going on during his 4-1/2 years in office.

      Some of the least informed, Max, actually claim that President Obama delivered nothing to be proud of or nothing worth remembering. Their lack of knowledge prevents them from understanding that the economy in the US has been steadily improving during the last four years. Therefore, Max, the next time you meet someone who claims the Obama presidency is a failure, you just tell that person...

      … President Barack Obama guided the country out of the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression;

      …The DJIA and the S&P 500 reached new historical highs on Aug. 1, 2013; The Dow rose from 6627 in Mar. 2009 to 15247 in Aug 2013; {1}

      … US Unemployment rate has declined steadily from 10.0% in Oct 2009, from 9.0 % in Feb. 2011, from 8.1 % Apr. 2012, to 7.4% in Jul. 2013; July’s 7.4% is the lowest since Jan. 2009; {2}

      … US Total YTD Domestic Car Sales (excluding imports) increased 10.1% over the same 7 months in 2012; {3}
      GM, Ford, Chrysler Group, and Toyota, the nation's four largest automakers, had their best July since before the 2007 recession;

      … New Privately Owned Housing Units Started in the United States during the first quarter of 2013 was greater than the same quarters in 2010, 2011, 2012 by 19% or more; {4}

      … New Home Sales surged 8.3 percent in June 2013, the highest in five years, bringing the year to date percentage change to 28.4 % over 2012; {5}

      … Retail Trade and Food Services: U.S. Total - Seasonally Adjusted - Sales reported in May 2013 exceeded every month going back to Jan. 2009; {6}

      … After the disastrous housing bubble burst several years ago, resale values of homes in most housing markets have returned to near or above their long-run values. {7}

      Obviously, Max, those who claim President Obama is inadequate have simply not been paying attention.
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
      {1} http://www.djaverages.com/
      {2}   http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
      {3} http://wap.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_30 … autosalesE
      {4} http://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/ … etions.pdf
      {5} http://www.census.gov/construction/nrs/ … ssales.pdf
      {6} http://www.census.gov/econ/currentdata/ … t=GET+DATA
      {7} http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicd … use-prices

      1. 60
        retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I will quibble over one consistently sited statistic and that is the stock market.  The Federal Reserve is pumping $85 billion into the stock market each month and has, thus far, kept the taps open for over 4 years.  This has created a false market and a new bubble of monumental proportions.  Time is not on our side.

        1. Zelkiiro profile image84
          Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Throwing buckets of water out of a sinking rowboat isn't a permanent solution, but at least it is a solution. I don't see the Republicans offering any legitimate alternatives, but that's probably because they're too busy filibustering bills that give relief money and insurance to war veterans.

          1. 60
            retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I was unaware there was a Republican and  Democrat Federal Reserve.  Non sequitur, yet again.

            1. 61
              TheWizardofWhimsyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              So, after a "slight quibble" with one detail,  you choose to ignore the rest of a considerable amount of salient and empirical fact, posted by Quilligrapher, you now want to evade retief2000's point with a convenient  distraction in terms. 

              I can understand why you prefer not using reason or actual data to support your point of view—it's because you see your ideology as a faith-based commitment and a sacrosanct position of your dogma.

              No wonder Obama can't depend on honest rational people in Congress to do anything other than wallow in petty tribal resentment and fear—in the hope of being reelected by their own congregation of irrational zealots who see The President as the anti-Christ.   

              Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power.  -Eric Hoffer

              1. 60
                retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                So, since it seems you are the master of specific data, what cogent point are you making about the STOCK MARKET - the only point I mentioned, the only one I addressed.  I am not sure what your point is since I made no comment on the economy or Obama's handling of it.  I addressed my self to something specific and stuck with that specific point.  If you are looking for anything more I would advise you to look else where, I have no time to teach Manx to a Mongol.

                and if you are going to quote Hoffer I would suggest reading The Ordeal of Change, it is as if he is talking specifically about Obama and his leftist supporters and allies.

                By the way it seems that whimsy has vanished to be replaced by something far less "entertaining"

        2. Quilligrapher profile image89
          Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Great to see you, Retief. I appreciate your making the time to address the contents of my post. A little quibbling among friends means nothing.

          Since you only “quibble” over one of my sited facts, I can relax knowing that you agree that the US economy today is evidence of a meaningful and steady improvement during President Obama’s tenure. After all, that was my one and only point. The country should give the President credit for this recovery, whether deserved or not, according to the entrenched political axiom, “Anyone in a position to take the blame when things go wrong is entitled to take the credit when things go right.”

          Allow me in interject one interesting, yet irrelevant, sidebar. Ben Bernanke is considered by some to be the Dr. Frankenstein who created quantitative easing making him a prominent Republican target. Never the less, he is in fact a Republican appointed by President George W. Bush. Even candidate Mitt Romney, after supporting him in 2010, flip-flopped and promised to jettison Mr. Bernanke when elected. However, anyone who has owned stocks or bonds in the past few years should be both elated and grateful that Mr. Romney never had the opportunity.

          Now, you question whether current stock market prices are a reliable indicator that the US economy has improved. In your words, “the Federal Reserve is pumping $85 billion into the stock market each month and has, thus far, kept the taps open for over 4 years. This has created a false market and a new bubble of monumental proportions. Time is not on our side.”

          There is no doubt that QE has led to higher stock values, but a “bubble of monumental proportions?” Wow! Is that just your personal opinion or can you site a recognized authority?

          The DJIA and the S&P 500 are at all time highs because the companies in those indexes are making profits like never before. The Wall Street Journal, for example, published this caption on August 18, 2013: “Shares trade in less correlation than at any time since financial crisis.” {1}

          What does "less correlation" mean? (I am so glad that you asked, Retief!)

          Time Magazine explains, “the market is returning to a more normal state of low correlation. In other words, stocks are beginning to rise and fall on their own merits.” {2}

          Finally, the notion that the Fed is recklessly printing money is a myth. Reuters recently focused on the long term effects of QE on the Fed by noting, “some economists fear that, as interest rates begin to move higher, the Fed will suffer a ‘loss’ on its portfolio, meaning its operating expenses exceed the return on its holdings… A Fed ‘loss’ would not be particularly meaningful in an economic sense. Central bank officials would simply defer payments to Treasury into future years.” {3}

          QE has not brought doom and financial catastrophe to our door. Only skeptics describe this policy as “pumping $85 billion into the stock market each month.” The Fed purchases government debt and mortgage-backed securities by exchanging reserves for assets. Connecting a stock market rise to quantitative easing is impossible because there are too many variables in addition to QE that effect stock prices.

          So, how exactly does QE affect the stock market? (Another great question!)

          The Fed’s QE policy has succeeded in artificially forcing lower interest rates, driving up bond prices, and boosting home prices. Psychologically, it instilled confidence that encouraged corporate borrowing that, in turn, fueled expansion and, to some degree, created jobs. Cheaper money lowered corporate expenses, led to higher sales, larger profits, greater appeal to investors that ultimately resulted in higher stock prices. Higher investment portfolio values meant greater consumer confidence and spending. With time, the economic engine will chug along under its own steam and the Fed’s QE policies can be gradually reversed. {4}

          In the final analysis, Retief, the QE policy at the Fed has had a positive impact on the broad economy. Financial markets, by nearly all measures, are stronger than in 2009. The stock market is but one indicator reflecting that renewal; the country’s GDP is another. President Obama signed The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 during his first month in office. The CBO reports that GDP rose every year since 2009 performing between 0.1 and 0.6 percent better than it would have without the Recovery Act. {5}

          There are many, Retief, who claim Barack Obama is totally inept and a failure as President for reasons that seem valid to them. However, there are others who know where our economy was, who know how far it has come, and who have good reasons to applaud the President. 
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
          {1} http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 21238.html
          {2} http://business.time.com/2013/08/21/tap … -stimulus/
          {3} http://blogs.reuters.com/macroscope/201 … nd-losses/
          {4} http://www.forbes.com/sites/ycharts/201 … ck-market/
          {5} http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3252

          1. gmwilliams profile image86
            gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Have to respect an intelligent and logical person who comes to the discussion presenting verifiable facts.  Quill, you are a person to be RESPECTED above ALL.
            http://s2.hubimg.com/u/8324973_f248.jpg

            1. Quilligrapher profile image89
              Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              My dear, Mz. Williamsss. Isz so habby use is sooo happy. I thenk.
              http://s1.hubimg.com/u/7285416_f248.jpg
              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

              1. Credence2 profile image86
                Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Quill, did you actually post this, it is not like you.....?

                1. Quilligrapher profile image89
                  Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I thenk I did. Maybe. lol
                  http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

                2. 83
                  Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I second your curiosity.  It doesn't sound like him.

              2. gmwilliams profile image86
                gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                This was very heartfelt and sincere, I have nothing but the utmost admiration and respect for you, Quilligrapher.
                http://s2.hubimg.com/u/8325113.jpg

                1. Quilligrapher profile image89
                  Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I know it was heartfelt and sincere, Grace. I am extremely flattered by your wonderful accolades and I thank you for posting them.

                  As for poking fun at myself at 2:00 a.m., it failed badly. I should have just said "thank you very much!" and gone to sleep. lol
                  http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

    2. Laura Schneider profile image92
      Laura Schneiderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      He tried to rally the US to be its former glorious self, believing, as those of us in Northern US believe, that we all have the hearts to make America great again. The Congress we elected and support, however, isn't following through by passing the laws that make those promises come to life. Why? (Ask your local congresspersons that question and demand a good answer and ask to see their financials to determine their true motivations.)

      1. Shawn McIntyre profile image86
        Shawn McIntyreposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I'm not sure which campaign you were watching, but I must have missed it. I saw the campaign where, in 2008, not only was he against an individual mandate for health care, but he actively hit Hillary Clinton and John Edwards in the primaries because they did want a mandate. Speaking on Ellen, he said the following: 



        I saw the campaign where he promised to roll back the patriot act and "usher in a new era of transparency". The same campaign where he said when speaking in 2007:



        Now I could go on and on (and incidentally, if you like, I'll provide the links to the videos of President Obama contradicting himself in these instances), but the simple truth is this: President Obama flat out lied to the Democratic Party (of which, I am a member) in order to get the nomination, and he flat out lied to the American people to win the general elections.

        Were it not for the fact that John McCain picked a running mate who couldn't find a coherent thought with two hands and a flashlight, I doubt Obama would have won in 08; and had the Republicans not run a candidate that made Al Gore look down right charismatic, I know he wouldn't have won in 2012.

        Support the President, by all means, but don't p*** on my leg and tell me it's raining"; he's a prototypical Chicago politician, and an embarrassment to the party, nothing more.

        1. Laura Schneider profile image92
          Laura Schneiderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Actually, I wasn't referring to campaigning at all, but rather to his numerous speeches both as and after he took office. My aim was to comment that the president can only sign what Congress gives him, and our Congress right now SUCKS. THAT's who/what deserves our attention--the folks who actually do the law-making, not the president who enforces them and can only indirectly influence the Congress to represent what's good for all of America through his speeches/directions to them and through his party-line influence. The president's only real power is in being the Commander in Chief of the armies, with the sole responsibility for declaring wars and such. Totally unrelated to our current discussion about stuff not getting done around the US: that'd be Congress's fault stuff's not getting done, regardless of what the president did or didn't say.

          I'm curious, though, what "a prototypical Chicago politician" is. Having lived there only several years, and that was awhile back, I was under the impression that Chicago knows only too well how to turn out politicians, but you're saying that President Obama is just a prototype of one? Do tell...

          1. Shawn McIntyre profile image86
            Shawn McIntyreposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Really? That's what you're going with: the President as the helpless victim of a malicious Congress? Perhaps you've forgotten that for the first two years, we were in control of Congress; the President had a blank check, he had free reign to push his agenda.

            The President screwed us, and he screwed the Party with his "suspending Obamacare implementation" shenanigans, something which the Constitution doesn't even come remotely close to allowing the Executive to do. He's also set a dangerous precedent for the next time the Republicans get a shot at the White House, and they put some Jed Clampett ripoff in office who uses executive orders to "suspend" ROE v. WADE... yet Brutus is an honorable man.

            Do you honestly think Republicans are going to deal on anything now? Why on Earth would they? Obama has all but guaranteed a Republican landslide next year in the midterms, he gave them the perfect political umbrella to hide under. They can shut down the Government, default on the US debt, and basically send us into another Great Depression, and still win in a landslide, because every one of them is going to go home and tell their constituents "oh we wanted to compromise with the Democrats, we really did, but we couldn't trust that the President wouldn't just use executive orders to undermine everything we tried to accomplish". They'll repeat that crap like it's the "duh duh duh da" part to "Tom's Diner", and they'll win in a walk.     



            All of the corruption, none of the felony convictions (at least not yet). Barack Obama is the "Diet Coke" of Chicago politics.

  5. crazyhorsesghost profile image88
    crazyhorsesghostposted 3 years ago

    What a lot of people fail to realize is that a President can really do nothing with out the support of the House and Senate. We the American people should vote in a Democratic Senate and House in 2014 at the mid term election. Then we could see what President Obama could do.

    1. 60
      retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      How was Ronald Reagan able to win the hearts and minds of leftists when he had a Democrat majority in both the House and the Senate to contend with.  How about George W. Bush, during his final two years - the beginning of the Recession, he had a Democrat majority in both houses of Congress.  Does that mean they share the blame?  How about Obama, he had filibuster proof majority in the Senate for his vaunted 100 days and a massive majority in the house. 

      Perhaps an inability to work even with his own party members has been an impediment to his success.  After all, he has submitted many budgets to Congress and did not even get the approval of his own party receiving less than 10% of the Senate vote each time.

    2. 59
      squeeknomoreposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That's a scary thought, CHG.  It is Halloween already?

  6. MG Singh profile image84
    MG Singhposted 3 years ago

    Obama has been president for about 5 years. I think he has done a grand job. The fact is the only people spitting venom on Obama are some white standard bearers. Unfortunately with the demographic voting pattern, a black may again be president. This will be galling for some whites.

    1. 0
      Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The word "whites" in your sentence could be interchangeable with the word "racists".
      I feel about  them the way Zelkiiro feels about babies. lol
      May the best man/woman win.

    2. 60
      retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      So for  you it is an issue of race.  How did Obama win in either election?  White voters.  How is that possible?  It isn't race but political party loyalty that had far more to do with both victories.  If race played a factor it was the understandably high turn out by Black voters.  Perhaps wiping the race from your lenses will yield a clearer vision of reality.

  7. 61
    TheWizardofWhimsyposted 3 years ago

    Yet more evasion,  the stock market has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this hub and you, in fact, ignored all of the other points that did address the issues above here.

    Rather than addressing the wisdom in Hoffer's  aphorism, you again chose to evade while  just name-dropping a Hoffer book that only you suppose supports your creed of beliefs.     

    Btw, thanks for the insult, my post must have struck a tender nerve of truth.

    1. 60
      retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      So your point is that you can model vitriol without effort or is it that you are in a bad mood.  I addressed that which I wished to address, addressed it succinctly and clearly and ever since have been subjected to demands by you that I address your own personal agenda in an open forum.  I am so sorry if you are upset.

      1. 61
        TheWizardofWhimsyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Firstly, I'm not remotely even close to being upset in any way.  Secondly, I've made no demands; I merely pointed out that your responses in this hub haven't anything to do with its topic. Lastly, I would ask you to provide just one sentence of mine that is vitriolic or even disrespectful to you or anyone else.

  8. WuldUStilRemebrMe profile image60
    WuldUStilRemebrMeposted 3 years ago

    If Obama wasn't black, there probably wouldn't be as much venom being spewed.  I think that is the real problem in the US of A.  Normally there is backlash around politics from the opposition in any country, but the US of A seems to be over the top in my opinion  It doesn't seem to matter what Obama does or doesn't do.  Hell, he gets blamed for everything.   He's not making decisions.  Anyone who knows anything about politics knows that.  However, we are talking about the US of A, right?  No wonder the man went grey over night!  I would not want to be walking in his shoes in the US of A!  OMG! even if he was Republican, there would still be Venom!

  9. HowardBThiname profile image90
    HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago

    I have no VITRIOLIC AND VENOMOUS hatred of the President.

    I just think he's arrogant and a flipping moron. Seriously, I really think that.

    Now, we're getting ready to go to war against Syria and I'm wondering who the fool was that thought it was a good idea to give Obama a Nobel Peace Prize.

    Probably the same lunatic that gave one to Arafat.

    1. innersmiff profile image79
      innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Don't forget Henry Kissinger . . . and the European Union.

    2. 61
      TheWizardofWhimsyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      A candid and honest personal opinion, which I respect.  Obama is a disappointment to me as well, however, he is no moron, and I have to seriously question your judgement in that assessment.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        His comment is living proof which validates gmwilliams thoughts in posting the topic. It reveals much more about the commenter than it does about President Obama. Perhaps he should try looking in a mirror.

        1. HowardBThiname profile image90
          HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry to rain on your conspiracy theory, Ralph, but I voted for Obama the first time around. I'm ashamed that I was so shallow.

          Perhaps you should look in your own mirror.

          1. 83
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I respect that.  I, too, have voted for candidates and regretted it.

    3. 60
      retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I could not agree with you more and that alone may undermine your credibility.

    4. 0
      TXSasquatchposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Morons don't graduate magna cum laude from Harvard Law.  Disagree with his politics if you wish, but he's no moron.  SMH

      1. 60
        retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        "Stupid is as stupid does, sir."
        Forrest Gump

        Obama policies in Libya and Egypt have been pretty damn stupid for someone purported to be so smart.

        "I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy."

        “It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong”
        Richard P. Feynman

        It doesn't matter how smart Obama is or is not in some esoteric sense but what he does that defines his effectiveness.  So far he has been very effective in his ultimate goal to dismantle America.

        1. 61
          TheWizardofWhimsyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          If that's the logic you want to use, then Obama is in the genius part of the spectrum compared to George W. Bush and his band of reckless fools.

          1. Credence2 profile image86
            Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            +++++++++++++++++++++++++++!

          2. 60
            retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Perhaps we are calculating the balance sheet differently.  I wonder what the hundreds of thousands butchered in the Congo, while Obama was leading with his behind in Libya to head off a human tragedy, would say.  Believe as you will.  We are finished as America.  I hope you can live with the replacement.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              And the rest of the world gives a huge sigh of relief!

              1. 60
                retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Be careful what you wish for.

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Is it so bad to wish to be out from under the yoke of American imperialism?

                  1. 60
                    retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Does it chafe a bit, perhaps your next master will be more lenient, once you learn Arabic, German, Russian or Chinese.  It is a wild ride from here on out Mister Toad.

                  2. 0
                    Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Not any worse than it was for the founders of the United States wanting to out from under the yoke of British imperialism.

            2. 61
              TheWizardofWhimsyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Your convenient denial of the facts is telling.  America veered off course when the Team-Bush True Believers decided on its pre-emptive invasion of Iraq.  Except for Al-Qaeda, the world was with America after 9/11 and blaming Obama is the same as criticizing a cleanup crew following a shit fest.

              1. 60
                retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Really, blaming him for what?  Facilitating the rise of Al Qaeda?  Empowering the Muslim Brotherhood?  Inflaming the Anti-American passions of Pakistanis?  Leaving Iraq still broken and bleeding more everyday?  Reminding the Afghans that the Taliban are more relevant, reliable and powerful than America led by Obama?

                What fact did I deny?  What fact did you offer, I am still looking for your fact.  Let me know if you find it.  You can remember the whole "world was with us" malarkey any way you would like.

                Blaming Obama for his monumental missteps in North Africa and the Middle East are appropriate, after all he has been Commander-in-Chief and America's Chief Diplomat for over 4 years.  When does he get to own his errors?  Is today okay or do you want to keep blaming a man who has had absolutely nothing to do with defense or diplomatic policy for this country for nearly 5 years (unless you subscribe to the Cheney as shadow president theory) or maybe ever.

                1. 61
                  TheWizardofWhimsyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The fact you deny is that Feckless George W. & Team-Bush misread the reality of 9/11, sought a wrongful revenge that destroyed a country, inflaming the Arabic-Islamic world with the murder, mayhem and the suffering of countless innocent people. 

                  You are doing exactly what Bush did; you're misplacing blame from a guilty party  (Al Qaeda) to a more convenient boogeyman, so you can more expediently unleash your anger and frustration.  In Bush's case it was attacking Iraqi—which absolutely had NOTHING to do with 9/11.  In your case, Obama is the more available scapegoat for your fury and disappointment.

                  1. 60
                    retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Well that just explains so much.  i am so silly that I would have called this an opinion.  My bad.

                  2. 60
                    retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Pretty sure I have mentioned Al Qaeda, but that is okay, spew what you wish.  There is ample evidence of Al Qaeda's connections all around the world prior to 9/11, including contacts with Iraqi intelligence.    But don't let that slow you down, you are on a roll.

                2. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  But they are more relevant!

                  1. 60
                    retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    As the retreating coalition will render them.

            3. Credence2 profile image86
              Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I hope you can live with the replacement. Ican most easily.
              I shudder to think about the alternative of a rightwing universe.....
              Keeping that as far away as possible is certainly my Goal.

              1. 60
                retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Well put up your mission accomplished banner.  We are finished as America,congratulations on a job well done.  Hopefully I will be able to post from the Gulag between chopping trees, burying my colleagues and scraping together enough odds and ends to make fish eye soup, because that is what happens to enemies of a leftist government.  We have seen it many times.

                1. 61
                  TheWizardofWhimsyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh Brother! roll

                2. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  That level of paranoia is treatable.

                  1. 60
                    retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I know that preparation is handy, that is why I am re-reading "A Day in the Live of Ivan Denisovich"

        2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          What do you recommend we do in Egypt, Libya and in Syria?

          1. 60
            retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Obama has done a marvelous job in all three places, if the goal was to destabilize the Middle East and facilitate the rise of radical Islam by empowering the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda.  I am not sure I could do a better job accomplishing Obama's goals.

            Maybe I would kill an increasingly irrelevant terrorist, defile his body, reveal deeply held defense department secrets and spike the football for months - that should teach those radicals I mean business and am not all bluster and blow.  Maybe after I successfully get SEAL team 6 killed I would get America's Ambassador to Libya killed.  That'll show em.

            1. Credence2 profile image86
              Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Obama could have parted the Red Sea or walked on water and you would find fault with him. From the stupid birther issue to a suggestion of impeachement from some Sen. Coburn, the rightwing is mad over promoting lamebrained ideology over the facts. The only mold that Obama breaks in his policies in office has nothing to do with policies, now does it?  America in flames is preferable to any rightwinger in control.

              1. 60
                retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You mean he hasn't, he killed Bin Laden merely by laying hands upon him and he raised GM from the dead.  He has pulled the economy from the stormy seas and he has fed the multitude with plastic cards.  Hosanna!

              2. lone77star profile image92
                lone77starposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Interesting the discussions by people who only read or watch the Corporate Party Military-Industrial Complex News Media. It's like listening to the insane argue in an asylum.

                I enthusiastically supported Obama in 2008, placing his banners on all of my websites. What a goofball I was. I actually believed his rhetoric. All lies!

                And now, Obama has done far worse than lie. He's betrayed his Oath of Office -- shredding the Constitution repeatedly, bypassing Congress, and making up his own laws.

                Emperor Obama! Sieg heil!

                He has his "Kill List" even with Americans on it. No more law. Just what the emperor says.

                Only it's not like any emperor of the past. Obama is merely a puppet of the Military-Industrial-Bank-Pharmaceuticals-Big-Oil Corporations.

                He knows not to upset the greed of his masters. He knows what happened to JFK. E. Howard Hunt admitted on his deathbed, to his son, that he participated in the murder of that President.

                America has become a joke. I love the illusion of what America used to be, in name. But it's now the new Evil Empire.

                Obama said of Gitmo prisoners, that they should stay there, even if found INNOCENT! America! What a joke.

                And with the accelerating national debt to madness, when that bubble pops, we're all toast -- the entire planet. Obama and his cronies will be safe in a government bunker (Arkansas perhaps?), while Washington burns.

                Close your mind and your eyes, if you must, but don't spread your junk without checking the facts. And you won't find them in the Corporate Party news.

      2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        It's one of the more deplorable aspects of human nature.  If one doesn't like another person, they tend to deny any and all admirable traits of that person.  It's that type of dehumanization that has caused a whole host of social issues.  Partisan politics is just one of the symptoms.

        For some reason, some people can't just say "I don't like him" or "I don't agree with his decisions". They must resort to personal attacks. It really says more about their character than his.

        1. 0
          TXSasquatchposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Spot on!  You couldn't hit the nail any more squarely on the head than that.

  10. John Holden profile image60
    John Holdenposted 3 years ago

    webmasterstuto reported.

  11. Wayne Brown profile image85
    Wayne Brownposted 3 years ago

    Get your facts straight, GM...that economic bubble was created during the Clinton Administration with the amendments to the Fair Housing Act.  The Bush Administration warned Congress on multiple occasions of the potential problem yet the Democrat-dominated body took no action until TARP.  The Office of President is a respected office and the holder of that office is expected to conduct his or herself in a manner fitting to that office.  Obama has fallen a bit short in that department in many ways including his propensity to employ flawed economic theory and publicly worship at the feet of socialist and marxist like, Alinsky.  His every flaw is counter-balanced by the threat of "playing th race card".  His words and his actions are on opposite ends of the spectrum thus he earns his criticism and in the process brings disrespect to the high office.

    1. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Wayne, that is nothing but your opinion,  and it is 100% bulls*** in my opinion.

    2. 83
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      In my opinion, you are correct.  +1

      1. 60
        retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        ++

    3. Laura Schneider profile image92
      Laura Schneiderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Wayne, I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you on this one. People have been disagreeing with President Obama and wishing him ill (or worse) since before he even took office. There's a certain respect that one needs to provide to the ruler of one's country, earned or not, in order for them to have even a chance at being a good leader. President Obama has been thwarted and at the end of someone's bayonet at every possible turn, to the point that he's criticized for literally every move he makes. Such a fine microscope has never been held to any president in the past. Having won a Nobel Peace Prize isn't even enough to earn him an ounce of respect from anyone, it seems.

      I think the nation is simply all just still prejudiced against black people, pure and simple, and we're taking out our prejudices on a formerly strong presidential candidate who is now someone who probably deserves our sympathy as much as anything: for what hope can he hold for the US when EVERYTHING he does is met with hatred from the majority of his people?

      I saw him criticized for playing a round of golf after giving a speech the other week. Dammit, who doesn't deserve a break now and then, regardless of the timing of it (pre- or post-speech)?

      Is he expected to be Superman 24 X 7 X 365 X 4? Yes, but in past presidencies we also allowed the president to be a HUMAN 24X7X365X4, too. Humans' mistakes should not all be called out in cries of hatred by everyone--we're all a country of relentless bullies if that's our opinion.

  12. 83
    Education Answerposted 3 years ago

    John,

    With all due respect, you're so far off on this one.  I'd quit while I could.  I don't see many people agreeing with the absurdity of your comments regarding why Coke and McDonalds are big in Britain.  Shall we draw the curtains of charity upon this forum?

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      While I suppose everybody will agree with your absurd claim that Coke and Macs are big purely because they are a far better product than any other!

      1. 83
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I never claimed they were the best products.  I claimed that they sell in Britain, and that the British have free will to purchase or not purchase those products.

        Despite all of this liberal wisdom and disdain for "corporate America" that keeps getting spewed, McDonalds and Coke remain big sellers in Britain.  The product sells in Britain, because the British buy it.  Laughably, you want to claim that the ONLY reason it sells is because of brilliant marketing.  I have greater faith in the British people.  Marketing helps, but in the end, the product must speak for itself.  If you want to blame somebody for American culture invading your country, look no further than the British consumer in these two cases.

        There are 1,200 McDonalds restaurants in Britain.  Sales must be solid.

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Funny, I don't remember MacDonalds or Coke being invited to sell in the UK!

          1. Shawn McIntyre profile image86
            Shawn McIntyreposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Wow, I can't believe they left you out of the loop on those. I mean sure, Coke "snuck" in over a century ago, but I thought sure that Wilson would have sought you out in the 70's and gotten your opinion before McDonald's made the trip across the pond.

            What on Earth were they thinking? Ah well, "live and learn" i guess.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              EA said - " If you want to blame somebody for American culture invading your country, look no further than the British consumer in these two cases."

              Under those circumstances I think it is fair and reasonable to ask when the British consumer invited those companies into the UK.

              1. Shawn McIntyre profile image86
                Shawn McIntyreposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Coke: 1900

                McDonald's: 1974

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  What  form did this invitation take?
                  A petition?
                  A Royal decree?

                  1. Shawn McIntyre profile image86
                    Shawn McIntyreposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Step 1: Someone decides to sell Coke in the UK.

                    Step 2: Someone in the UK sees the Coke in a store and says: "That looks interesting... I think I'll try it".

                    Step 3: That person says "Jolly good this drink, I think I'll tell my friends about it"

                    Step 4: As more and more people try it, demand increases. The person selling Coke decides to sell more.

                    Rinse and repeat for 113 years (or until people stop buying), and you get Coke in the UK.

                  2. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Doubtful.  More like the invitation took the form of an open wallet.  That always seems to entice a company to sell...

                  3. 60
                    retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    The invitation to a business always takes the same form.

                    1) I shall build a shop and sell my wares.
                    2) If people want my wares at the price I offer I shall succeed.
                    3) If people do not want my wares at the price I offer I shall fail.
                    4) If I adjust my price and people still do not want my wares I shall fail.
                    5) If no action I take will result in success I must close shop and move elsewhere.

                    Britons, apparently, liked enough of McDonalds' wares as to make it a success.

              2. 83
                Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                The OFFICIAL invitation was received on August 3, 1921 for Coke and June 4, 1961 for McDonalds. 

                Are you serious?  Brtis "invited" these products into their nation by purchasing their goods.  Since when do people have to invite companies to come to their country?  When did America invite Vodaphone or Rolls Royce to do business in America?  Please provide the date and a copy of the invitation.

          2. 83
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I seriously doubt that Coke and McDonalds were formed to specifically make money only in America.  I', guessing that both companies are willing to make money wherever they can. 

            How can this be an argument?  What is your point?

  13. 59
    tanklessheaterposted 3 years ago

    Donn't on country Sham.It is against humanity.
    Thanks
    john

  14. 83
    Education Answerposted 3 years ago

    John,

    I'm still awaiting that important information, and I'm hopeful you will be able to provide it.  When did America invite Vodaphone or Rolls Royce to do business in America?  Please provide the date and a copy of the invitation. 

    I'm attaching a Vodaphone commercial that targets "innocent" consumers, some of which might be children.  Vodaphone might be targeting a foreign country in this commercial!  I sure hope corporate Britain doesn't start to ruin another country's culture.  Wasn't British imperialism bad enough?  If they didn't receive an invitation to do business in another nation, British companies shouldn't be allowed to ruin the rest of the world with British culture. 

    See how it sounds?  I'm tired of the America bashing. 

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB1UPJ4leqs

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      " British companies shouldn't be allowed to ruin the rest of the world with British culture.  "

      I entirely agree.

      1. 83
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        That sure seems to be your message.  You constantly complain about America, but your own country is doing a lot of the same things.  Your country sells plenty of products in other countries too, and they weren't even "invited" there. 

        Where are those invitations? Have you found them yet?

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Indeed, we do similar, but not to anything like same extent.

          Tell me, when you walk around your mall or along your high street, how many household names are British?  How many British equivalents of Starbucks or McDonalds? 
          You go to the cinema, how many British films are shown? A night in watching TV? How many British programmes?

          1. Shawn McIntyre profile image86
            Shawn McIntyreposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You're right John, the U.K. is much, much worse:

            How many household names are British?: You are joking right? Of the top 5 most common surnames in the US (Smith, Johnson, Williams, Jones, and Brown), all are of British origin. According to the 2010 Census, roughly 13% of the population in the U.S. is of British decent.

            How many British equivalents of Starbucks or McDonalds?: Not many, the British companies in the US are much larger, and some would argue, more destructive. Huge drug companies like AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline, and what is it that "B" stands for in BP? Oh that's right: "British"; great job you guys did in the Gulf by the way. roll 

            You go to the cinema, how many British films are shown?: Hmmm, where was it all of the Star Wars movies were made? How about Harry Potter, or James Bond?

            A night in watching TV? How many British programmes?: You're right, there aren't many British shows on American Television... unless of course you count: Whose Line Is It Anyway, Dancing with the Stars, The Office, Mistresses, House of Cards, American Idol, Top Gear , The X Factor, Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, Shameless, Kitchen Nightmares, America's Got Talent, Celebrity Fit Club, Hell's Kitchen, Undercover Boss, and the entire BBC America network.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I should have remembered the language barrier! Household name aren't the names of households, rather names that are known in every household like Starbucks and Coke.



              I bet children pester their parents day in and day out to buy them Astra Zeneca, and GlaxoSmithKline products!
              No, you're right, Coke and big Macs are far more important <sarasm>
              Americans own 38% of shares in BP, 35% by British investors.



              which rather disproves the claim that we can't make films, but they don't constitute the majority of films shown in either country. Instead we get fed a diet of Americans being heroes in situations that no American was ever involved in.



              American Idol and America's got talent!

              Backs my point up nicely.

              1. Shawn McIntyre profile image86
                Shawn McIntyreposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                </sarasm>

                Also known as "Pop Idol" and "Got Talent", but nice try avoiding facts.

                I really have to say, you are one of the most successful trolls I've come across in a while. You'd do well on Reddit.

                1. gmwilliams profile image86
                  gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 !

                2. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I think it is you avoiding facts if you believe that American Pop Idol and Americas Got Talent are British programmes, or do they really have British wannabes on it?

                  What is your definition of a troll? Somebody who doesn't see things the same way that you do?

                  1. psycheskinner profile image80
                    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    They *are* British programs owned respectively by Simon Fuller (UK)/Fremantle Media (Europe) and Simon Cowell(UK)/SYCOtv(UK).  I am not sure why that would be impossible to believe.

                  2. Shawn McIntyre profile image86
                    Shawn McIntyreposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Nice Inception style comment. smile

                    Your failure to spin my point notwithstanding, I stand by my position that you'd be a top notch troll on Reddit.

              2. 83
                Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                John,

                What exactly are you arguing?  Are you arguing to prove that your country has been a commercial failure?  Are you further arguing that it's right and just to fail at marketing and selling products in other countries?  Please don't take this the wrong way.  I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I truly don't understand what you are trying to prove here.

          2. 83
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Do you think that British companies are more respectful and do business only within their own borders?  Let's be honest.  If British companies could further expand their markets in America, they would do so.  It's about money.  Your country hasn't been as successful entering other markets.  That doesn't mean they haven't tried.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              There was a small Scottish company making expensive golfing jumpers and selling to America.

              America put a 100% import tariff on their product.

              Goodbye small Scottish company.

              1. 83
                Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                If an American tariff did that, then that company must have been doing most of their business in America.  Doesn't that run contrary to the point you were trying to make?

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  No, it reinforces the point I was making. America views the world as its marketplace but hey,let some small company break into the American market . .

                  1. 83
                    Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    British companies don't view the world as a marketplace?  You need to send a letter to BP, and let them know that they are not acting British.  LOL

                    Give me a break.  British companies do the same thing and would do it more if they could.

                2. Laura Schneider profile image92
                  Laura Schneiderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You guys are soooo far off on a tangent--just please start a new thread for this stuff. This thread is supposed to be about President Obama, certainly not British/American relations, bad entertainment, or lack thereof.

                  I'm not saying anyone's right or wrong in their opinions, I'm saying I'm not reading them because I wanted to read discussion about the president under this thread.

  15. 0
    TXSasquatchposted 3 years ago

    You see--this is why we shouldn't discuss politics at HubPages.  People are too emotional, and logic can't coexist with emotion.  It makes people, well, you know.  SMH

  16. 60
    orangestoneposted 3 years ago

    Bravo! Thank you, Laura, for some intelligent and fair minded observations.
    At least half the U.S. is out of sync with "truth". Pandering, instead to far right winged, bigotry and fantasy. The kind of "folks" that actually are buying into a kind of "new-Nazi", propaganda.
    The kind of "folks" that actually believe a wealthy, womanizing, "egomaniacal greed monger" like
    "Donald Trump" is a good and just leader and a brilliant mind.
    It's sickening really.
    America, the real and true America isn't about symbols and patriotic flag waving and
    parades. Its about and ideal. And an idea.
    The idea that a place exist that is loving of all people and tolerant of those with different beliefs.
    Better said, not simply tolerant but rather a country that embraces "new ideas" and people and
    ideas that challenge the status quo.
    I have gone looking for the brave and courageous America of our past and i have not found it.
    America has been kidnapped by, biased, bull-shi--ing, far right, ultra conservative, "foreigners."
    "Aliens", really that have nothing to do with real freedom and true courage.
    Cowards for the patriotic, corporate, mantra.
    Fools, that embrace symbols over substance that is turning the stomach of true American idealist
    and the entire world of compassionate and intelligent humanity.
    God help us.
    -R.L. Livingstone

 
working