Obviously it is possible to disagree with Obama's policies for good, solid reasons. Even I don't agree with all of his policies.

But some of the hatred we are seeing from the extreme members of our society cannot be explained away simply because of disagreements with his policies. Many of his policies are the same as Bush (TARP money, wars in Afghanistan, etc). He has actually lowered taxes instead of raised them. Yet the Teabaggers and politicians who support them are acting like Obama is some sort of anti-Christ who wants to destroy America. (Not exaggerating here -- One study found that 24% of all Republicans think Obama "might be the anti-Christ".)

What explains this hatred?

Could it be that we now have:

a black President
a Catholic Vice President
a female Catholic Speaker of the House
a Mormon Senate President
a Jewish Chief of Staff
a Latina Supreme Court justice
a gay chair of the House financial committee

There's not one male WASP among the highest positions in the Obama administration...

An editorial in today's New York Times addresses this issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28rich.html

What do you think?

I don't think so at all. Are there racists who oppose Obama? Absolutely. But that is not the source of the opposition.

You don't have to be a racist to realize that the policies that he's pushing are putting the country further and further into debt. And yes, you can say that Bush's policies were also debt-centered (and you would be right), but never did they reach the proportions they did in Obama's first two years as a president. There's just no going around that.

Look, to focus on some racism that's going on everywhere (and don't fool yourself; there are plenty Obama supporters who are racist) is a red herring here. The real issue is that the policies he is putting in place are going to do real damage long term.


P.S. I find it funny that you would label Tea Party Movement racist while using a term like teabagger, which has pretty homophobic implications.

Nothing homophobic about that term. And I use it to be insulting, yes, I admit.

Racism? I mean he is not even really black or with the words of the former German Bundeskanzler Helmut Schmidt on a live TV interview

"Obama isnt really black....hm....He is more coffee brown"

lol, to white America he's black enough.

Then why don't you hate him, like you hated Bush? Is it because you hate white people? I love when people question other's motives rather than their substantive arguments.

Tea-bagging has pretty homophobic connotations, unless you think placing male genitals on another man's face (yes, the victim of these pranks are 99.99999% men) while he is sleeping or passed-out is completely without a homosexual element. If it happened to a woman, I am sure you would consider it (and rightly so) sexual assault.

You're thinking of "snorkeling." Get your terms right.

No, I'm thinking of tea bagging. Snorkeling: The act of giving oral sex to a male underwater http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=snorkling

Tea Bagging: One who slaps another person in the face with their nad sack. http://teabagger.urbanup.com/692239

Okay, this thread just took a disturbing turn.

Hmmmm, according to polls and stats over 95% of blacks voted for Obama. How much of anti-McCainism is about race?

95%, Price

McCain is a robot; perhaps it was the cyborgphobia that got him?

I'd say more than half of the people that hate him, hate him because he's black.

I would think that it is even higher. I dislike Obama, but in no way do I hate him or think that he is evil. I think he legitimately believes his ideas will help the average American and that his policies are good for America in general. I would reserve the word "hate," as far as politicians go, to those who are dishonest/disingenuous or that do illegal/evil things.

proud to be part of the 5% that did not.

I doubt 95% of blacks know how to vote.

uhhh........

"FILMO makes popcorn ready"

Apparently only 50-60% of any color of eligible Americans know how to vote...

I guess thats a sucess too.....ok we still have enough nukes to bring us back into the stoneage but hey....

Well, not quite. Three months into his term he raised taxes on tobacco to pay for unrelated children's health insurance. The tax increase on loose RYO tobacco was a whopping 2000+% and is now greater than 100% of the retail price of the product including the former tax rate. I appreciate how tobacco use is hated by most people and since smokers are not considered to be Americans with full and equal Rights other than to be taxed unjustly to pay unequally for everyone else's problems, I will apologize for offending the majority of privileged characters who have the power to legislate the freedoms of unpopular minorities out of existence in advance.

Look, I supported the guy and note that he was known to be a smoker himself, so the 20+% of the voting public who smoke tobacco were totally blindsided by The SCHIP bill and The PACT Act which will soon prohibit the USPS from delivering out-of-State tobacco purchases by mail, but Groucho, I must now order you to put out your cigar. It is for your own good.

Most proponents of marijuana legalization suggest that it should be heavily taxed. If people are going to have unhealthy habits, why not make a mint off of it? Why not find a way to find positives in a negative industry. Why not weed out those who may not considering smoking just not worth it, or discouraging newbies from taking up a pack. Smokers still have a choice. It's just there's a consequence of that choice.

Does the government treat smokers like second class citizens? Not as much as the tobacco companies, to who smokers are a resource.

Or maybe he's just doing a horrible job

Hmm maybe because of second-hand smoke, the awful smell, and the terrible health conditions it causes that our health insurance pays for? That is one tax I am all for personally.

These taxes are excessive, unjust and are irrespective of Voluntary Exposure to second-hand smoke as occurs in bars known to allow smoking.
As for the 'terrible health consequences', yes they are terrible, however, the lung cancer rate in California from smoking is less than 1 percent per year, both smoking and non-smoking-related.

In the year 2007 The American Cancer Society estimated 8,885 new cases of lung cancer in the State of California, both smoking and non-smoking/Second-Hand Smoking-related.
http://www.ccrcal.org/PDF/ACS2007.pdf

Of all lung cancers, only 30 to 37% are smoking/Second-Hand Smoking-related.

In 2001, the rate of all heart diseases in The State of California, both smoking and non-smoking related was reported to be 1.7 Million people/6.9% of all Californian adults.
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/pubsforms/Pubs/O ... CA2001.pdf

I need to look it up, but somewhere on the internet is the figure of roughly 653,000 heart disease cases
caused by direct smoking, in other words, only one third of heart cases are direct-smoking related.

The population of The State of California is greater than 36 Million people.

The smoking population of The State of California is reported to be greater than 14%, 5+ Million smokers.

When 5 Million smokers who inhale tobacco smoke directly day-in and day-out cannot produce more than 8,885 new cases of lung cancer or 653,000 cases of heart disease, then it is not the tobacco.

As for taxes, how would you like to pay 100% or more in taxes for the things you like?
It doesn't sound VERY AMERICAN TO ME. Neither does banning smoking in privately owned bars, restaurants and buildings where the exposure to second-hand smoke IS VOLUNTARY.
Why do people want to boss where they don't even want to go?