Is Obama Anti American?

1. 61

   lady_love158posted 13 years ago

   I wouldn't have thought so but this piece does make a good argument. I just figured Obama was foolish and naive . But I also thought by now Obama would gave learned his lesson... there is evilin the world and radical muslims personify this. Some conservative estimates put muslim extremists at 1% of the muslim population of 1.6 billion!  That's a lot of evil and I doubt bowing apologizing or speaking in soft professortorial tones will make the suddenly reasonable.
   
   But maybe I'm. Wrong. Obama is a smart man surely he knows what is so obvious to the rest of us... unfortunately that leaves the very real possibility he is un American!
   
   http://biggovernment.com/pgeller/2011/0 … -american/

   replyreport
   1. 71

      The Frog Princeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Obama is neither naive or stupid, neither are his handlers.  It is the hidden agenda that bothers me in all of this.  It is totally hidden and not at all transparent.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      You're not wrong.  Stop thinking you are!  His svelte style and charisma cannot always conceal his anti-American sentiments anymore.   Ms. Geller is right;  she even points out something I discussed with hubby last night----Obama refuses to help Israel, yet he responds to other Countries where his agenda can have a foothold.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         DTR0005posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Wow... ok Brenda - I won't ask for where you get the 'PROOF" or God forbid, the facts,  that the current administration isn't still shoveling money to Israel. So am I to take it that Americanism and support for Israel are inseperable? So to be a good American you have to support Israel? Just asking for a little clarification...

         replyreport
      2. 60

         Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         We're supposed to bomb Israel now?  Do you live in a dry county?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            LOL but also sadly, you are right about one thing.
            If that's Obama's definition of "helping", then I don't want him even touchin' Israel, period!

            replyreport
   3. 70

      pylos26posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Hi lady-love…your unselfish and informative contributions to hubpages’ political forum are enjoyed and appreciated by many fellow hubbers, and many look forward to a continuation of your keen intellectual efforts. Although, some are wondering if your continued efforts of the “kicking of a dead horse” reveals an erosion in that intellect.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I can assure... the horse us far from dead and still remains a serious threat to freedom!

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            The most serious threat to freedom is the steady drumbeat of lies.
            
            Shall we look at the author of the article LaLo linked to? Andrew Breitbart.
            The name should be familiar. He's the writer who 'broke' the story about Shirley Sherrod. But it was a character assassination.  He took the speech she gave to the NAACP and edited it to create an impression of racism from a black government employee. Since the story might embarrass the administration, Fox ran with it without the slightest effort to check the truth. When the speech was examined in context, Shirley Sherrod was saying the OPPOSITE of what Breitbart said.
            
            I have no problem with conservatives arguing their position with whatever facts support their view. Most conservatives wouldn't know an objective fact if it bit them on the behind. These guys usually have a bald eagle as their avitar, as if a display of patriotism will overcome blatant ignorance. The worst kind of conservative is the blatant liar who will make up or maliciously twist the 'facts' with creative editing to manufacture a falsehood. LaLo's source is lower than pond scum.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Actually if you look at all the evidence Sherrod can still be shown to be biased. By the way you're the liar now! The story Fox ran with was Sherrod's firing... it seems it was the Obama administration that acted before checking the facts!!
               
               But let's not let the truth get in the way of your liberal talking point lies!

               replyreport
               1. 67

                  Flightkeeperposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Obama is not anti-american if you're from the loony left.  They actually think he does good things.  It's weird that the loony left doesn't give him any criticism and then they attack George Bush and still say it's all his fault. It's kind of sad except it's really funny.

                  replyreport
               2. 59

                  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  The only way you can 'show' that Sherry is racially biased is to take her statements out of context. The 'victim' of Sherrod's alleged racism is a white farmer who came to Sherrod's defense. The media sewer that calls itself Fox News for days ran with the story exactly as that lying SOS Breitbart wrote it. The administration was at fault for acting on the story without checking and they admitted it, they apologized and offered to reinstate her. Fox News NEVER admitted their journalistic failure.
                  
                  Note that when Dan Rather made the same mistake, not checking a source, it cost him his career. Who lost their job at Fox?,

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Uh no you're wrong sorry! But you wouldn know that since you never watched Fox but I do and recall quite clearly Glen Beck coming to Sherrod's defense after Breitbart released the video. But hey for you the truth is what's reported in the daily Kos and hufpo... you know that site that doesn't pay its reporters!
                     By the way Sherrod made other statements and has written elsewhere revealing her bias besides that video.

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        And of course you can quote those other statements.
                        
                        While you are at it, where is the apology from Fox, the correction, and who was held responsible for the lies that Breitbart wrote and Fox repeated.
                        
                        You are known by the company you keep and Breitbart is a liar without honor or a shread of journalistic credibility.

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Fox has nothing to apologize for they reported the facts which was the firing of Sherrod. You have it wrong as usual. As for Sherrod's bias you can look it up.

                           replyreport
                  2. 67

                     Flightkeeperposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     
                     
                     That's hilarious.  Dan Rather, a reporter and three executives not only not checked their source thoroughly.  They ran with the story during a presidential race in an effort to affect it with inaccurate reporting.  Not only was it unfair and inaccurate they defended their story for almost two weeks!!!  Even when people told them that there were red flags!!! And they never admitted that they were wrong either!
                     
                     Yes let's compare, smearing then president of the US using inaccurate and now obviously untrue story with Sherrod, a low level Obama cog, about something that is a half true story.    Ah, the company you keep Doug. 

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Let's see if we agree on one factual point. You concede, and i quote you, "now obviously untrue story with Sherrod". So go back and find the source of that story. Andrew Breitbart. The pond scum who LaLo linked to here.

                        replyreport
                        1. 67

                           Flightkeeperposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           That phrase was pertaining to the Bush smear which is now obviously untrue.  The half true phrase was pertaining to Sherrod.  I think that you should read the entire sentence first so that you understand what it is people are posting.  I haven't conceded anything and we still don't agree.

                           replyreport
2. 78

   kirstenblogposted 13 years ago

   

   replyreport
3. 59

   Doug Hughesposted 13 years ago

   LaLo - I noticed you did not make any anti-Obama posts yesterday.
   
   Does your religion prohibit telling lies on Sunday?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      
      
      There's got to be a loophole in here somewhere!!  I can't go a day without publicly hating Obama and America.

      replyreport
4. 60

   Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years ago

   From your "credible source" 
   
   How one yearns for the Bush days when the world was stable.
   
      
   
   biggovernment.com?  what's the matter, did antiamericanobamahaters.com not tickle your fancy today?

   replyreport
5. 62

   pisean282311posted 13 years ago

   No president of usa is/was anti america...yes bush with his actions did prove to be anti american but he too was ignorant and not anti american is real sense...obama infact stands for every thing that american founders wanted america to be...he is one president after long long time seeing whom american founders would have felt proud of...

   replyreport
   1. 61

      lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Lol! Your knowlege of Obama and the founders of America is non existent! If you knew anything about either you couldn't possibly reach such a conclusion.

      replyreport
      1. 62

         pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         ya right...i forgot bush founded the new america...america stands for democracy , freedom , peace , prosperity , opportunity for all...i mean the older one ...bush stood for war , blowing economy , manipulating of market by few , bullying world and having no diplomacy sense...but you are right in new america obama would be termed as anti america but considering values of founding father of usa , obama is best president usa could have had after bush...after worst , usa needed someone who stood for values and ethos which formed america...
         
         coming to article , the author forgot that libya operation is backed by world and it is not bush type iraq operation when iraq was bombed without any reason other than king bush didnt like saddam...iraq disaster has led usa in fix position and once it goes out of iraq it would go strengthening iran more ...now that is more anti american than bombing libya...so in context of article bush would be twice anti american than obama...shh...why bush always wins the race of being everything which american president should have never been ...

         replyreport
6. 60

   dingdondingdonposted 13 years ago

   Do "real" Americans have to be loudly pro-Israel now? I wasn't informed about this rule.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      That's odd.  Obama was informed, I'm sure.  But he sure balks at it.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Maembeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      But Obama is loudly pro-Israel.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Really?  From which side of his mouth?

         replyreport
7. 60

   BillyDRitchieposted 13 years ago

   I don't know about anti-American, but Obama does come across quite often as not liking the country he governs very much.  Given his apology tours after taking office, never speaking of American exceptionalism, and strong anti-capitalist sentiments, we're left with no other conclusion.
   
   I doubt Obama is anti-American, but he has said that he wants to "fundamentally transform" the country, and I just don't think many people are that crazy about the America he wants it transformed into.....

   replyreport
   1. 61

      DTR0005posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      You got some good points here Billy.. I am not sure if the world of the early 21st Century doesn't need a "little transforming." My two youngest children can't remember a time when we weren't at war somewhere. Still are - and I have to criticize the president for that. But, in for a penny, in for a pound. That's part of the problem in starting someting - you have to finish it or just walk away; neither option is very appealing.  And other than a wildly speculative, over-the-top exhuberance in the real estate markets, I really don't see anything that leaves me "longing for the good ole days."
      All rhetoric aside, I don't think it's an issue of "not liking this country" - I think it's an issue or personality. Obama is just  very much of a  "cold fish," very reserved. Whether that is a personality type a president can have, only history will tell. I don't find his personality really any different than that of Nixon, Ford, Carter, or Bush 1.

      replyreport