Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Please, racism being the reason to dislike Obama is so far down the list of why he is disliked by the majority of people.

Its just a convenient scapegoat from the left to say its just racism.

I didn't say it was a reason that people disliked Obama. I said it was a reason people hated Obama.

 jasper76 wrote:

 LuciusAR wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Where is the obligatory "Obama is truly histories greatest monster" comment?

That's another thing I've noticed. There is allot of Hyperbole regarding both presidents Bush and Obama. I've never seem so much hatred directed towards two presidents before and I can personally thing of far worse post war Presidents (both Republican and Democrat) than either of them. I don't mean legitimate criticism of their polices, I mean ludicrous hyperbole and hatred.

I'm wondering if its something to do with the prevalence of the Internet during the terms of these two Presidents? I can't imagine anything like the 'birther' conspiracies gaining any kind of traction in the pre internet days.

With Bush I think its because, lets face it, he wasnt the sharpest knife in the cupboard,

If you paid attention, you'd be wrong.

and many people suspect he just let Halliburton (Cheney) run the country,

Which is just as hysterical as the Birther™ movement.

up to and including who we decided to make war against, and for what actual reasons.

You forget... the US congress approved these operations. In fact, 26 days after the September 11 attacks, Operation Enduring Freedom commenced in Afghanistan.

The reason for this campaign is to oust the Taliban from power, rid the region of al-Qaeda, and build a sustainable post-war Afghan government eventually involved 58 nations, many of them non-NATO members.

In Iraq, 45 nations joined the United States in the March of 2003 with mission to oust Saddam Hussein from control in Baghdad.

About a month later... other nations such as Angola and Ukraine had committed to joining the mission, raising the total number of coalition countries including the United States to 48.

There is no question that there were major feth ups along the way (flawed intelligence, nation building, Abu Gahrib, mutliple surges, etc...) and that is something that we MUCH to learn from.... It is, however, nothing less than revisionist history to suggest America acted unilaterally in Iraq or that there were "cabals in the Bush administration" that manipulated the intelligence to line their own pockets.

Which Helping a company out is one thing. Manufacturing intelligence to start wars for the benifit of corporations is something entirely different.

Which is crazy-pants... this is stuff from Van Jones websites.

With Obama, I know I'll get flame for this, but I think alot of the hatred (not dissaproval, but hatred) is just plain racism. Older white voters, as well as voters in more racist areas of the country (like where I live), feel entitled that only their kind should run the country. Write this off all you want, but if you live here, you know its true.

Which you'd be wrong.

Sure, there are some racist donkey-caves who would, but they'd be a distance minority. Think about it... blacks are approx 13% of the US population... and yet, Obama won the Presidency TWICE.

I fething hate, hate most of Obama's policies... and I challenge you to call me a racist for holding those views. All of my objections/reasoning are based on things outside of his skin color.

Cheney retires as chairman and CEO of Haliburton in 2000 with a $36 million dollar severance packeage to go be Bush's Vice President.

Before the war starts, Halliburton gets a $7 billion no-bid contract.

It is not very hard to connect the dots here. Beware the military industrial complex and all.

Anyways, I didn't mean that hatred of Obama's policies is likely due to racism...just hatred of the man.


And didn't the US Congress approve actions in Iraq after being presented with faulty intelligence. And I never said we went to Iraq alone, did I?

 jasper76 wrote:
Cheney retirs as chairman and CEO of Haliburton in 2000 with a $36 million dollar severance packeage to go be Bush's Vice President.

That's typical for large corporations CEO severance package.

Before the war starts, Halliburton gets a $7 billion no-bid contract.

I do have MAJOR problems with "no-bid contracts" that is prevalent in government. Haliburton wasn't the only one...

Also, no-bid contracts didn't change under Obama's watch:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/13/obamas-mounting-hypocrisy/

Hypocrisy is his name....

It is not very hard to connect the dots here. Beware the military industrial complex and all.

It's a stretch... but, sure... watch out for 'em.

Anyways, I didn't mean that hatred of Obama's policies is likely due to racism...just hatred of the man.

Ah... okay.

Again, I'd posit that those folks are in the minority.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:

And didn't the US Congress approve actions in Iraq after being presented with faulty intelligence. And I never said we went to Iraq alone, did I?

Right... but key word was "faulty intelligence". Not some, "back room Halliburton/Military Industrial Complex Villain smoking cigar Pull'n the Bush Puppet Strings" in order to maximize profits at the expense of blood.

Just to be clear, I also would vote 'disapprove' if polled on an Obama questionairre, alebeit likely for very different reasons than the conservative side of the fence.

But I don't hate the man. Many people in my immediate area do, and growing up around here, its no secret as to why.

I don't trust the Washington Times as a news source...not because its conservative, but because it was founded by a religious fanatic who literallty claimed to be the messiah. I know he's passed on now but something about that paper has always seemed highly suspect to me.

Hey Frazzled, out of curiosity, is there any comparison for approval/popularity of Congress at the same time in each Presidency?

I'm interested if there's a correlation at all.

 curran12 wrote:
Hey Frazzled, out of curiosity, is there any comparison for approval/popularity of Congress at the same time in each Presidency?

I'm interested if there's a correlation at all.

This has been looked at and a "somewhat" consensus states that there's no strong link between the two. I'll see if I can find stuff.

Again, I think this is more of general 2nd term "fatigue", rather than something specific pulling down Obama's numbers.

Oh I would absolutely agree that it is fatigue, though what I'm wondering is if the fatigue is exacerbated by a similar fatigue/displeasure/had-enough-of-this feeling with Congress as well.

As far as the man itself, I like Obama, and he had a good start, but I wholeheartedly agree that his performance has severely dropped over time. I'm more upset with Congress than him, but they are all symptomatic of the same problem within the system as a whole.

 whembly wrote:
Right... but key word was "faulty intelligence". Not some, "back room Halliburton/Military Industrial Complex Villain smoking cigar Pull'n the Bush Puppet Strings" in order to maximize profits at the expense of blood.

Perhaps I won't be able to break your image of a tin-hatter here, but I think its too much of a coincidence that if someone golden parachutes out of a war-profiteeting company into the White House, then that company conveniently gets a 7 billion dollar sweetheart deal on a war support contract for a war premised on bad intelligence, its not much of a stretch to assume collusion between that company and the administration.

But it is just an assumption, based on cynicism rather than crazy, and I'm happy to settle with just saying that the situation was very highly suspicious, as opposed to a foregone conclusion. I don't sit at home biting my nails over it or anything.

 jasper76 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Right... but key word was "faulty intelligence". Not some, "back room Halliburton/Military Industrial Complex Villain smoking cigar Pull'n the Bush Puppet Strings" in order to maximize profits at the expense of blood.

Perhaps I won't be able to break your image of a tin-hatter here, but I think its too much of a coincidence that if someone golden parachutes out of a war-profiteeting company into the White House, then that company conveniently gets a 7 billion dollar sweetheart deal on a war support contract for a war premised on bad intelligence, its not much of a stretch to assume collusion between that company and the administration.

But it is just an assumption, based on cynicism rather than crazy, and I'm happy to settle with just saying that the situation was very highly suspicious, as opposed to a foregone conclusion. I don't sit at home biting my nails over it or anything.

Okay... fair enough.

 curran12 wrote:
Oh I would absolutely agree that it is fatigue, though what I'm wondering is if the fatigue is exacerbated by a similar fatigue/displeasure/had-enough-of-this feeling with Congress as well.

I honestly think most people, moderate conservatives included, miss the perception of prosperity during the Clinton years (another reason why smart money is on Hillary for 2016). Since the perception of prosperity did not return in either the Bush or Obama adminsitrations, people at large become displeased with whatever figurehead happens to be in office.

Just a pet theory.

A chick That was a higher up in CGI federal is a lady Obama friend and they received a "limited bid" contract for the horribly produced healthcare.gov.

Google, an American company that had already done something similar in google health, wasn't even considered.

 jasper76 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Right... but key word was "faulty intelligence". Not some, "back room Halliburton/Military Industrial Complex Villain smoking cigar Pull'n the Bush Puppet Strings" in order to maximize profits at the expense of blood.

Perhaps I won't be able to break your image of a tin-hatter here, but I think its too much of a coincidence that if someone golden parachutes out of a war-profiteeting company into the White House, then that company conveniently gets a 7 billion dollar sweetheart deal on a war support contract for a war premised on bad intelligence, its not much of a stretch to assume collusion between that company and the administration.

But it is just an assumption, based on cynicism rather than crazy, and I'm happy to settle with just saying that the situation was very highly suspicious, as opposed to a foregone conclusion. I don't sit at home biting my nails over it or anything.

You might have a case if he ended up as Secretary of Defense or the President, but the Vice President has no real power over policy(other than being the tie breaker)

The Vice President is basically the appendix of the executive branch.

I have a feeling that at this point, with the way the media at large works and the largely binary nature of politics in the US, no presidential candidate is going to come out with positive numbers in the foreseeable future. There's simply too much invested in making them look bad and functioning as a scapegoat.

There's a lot of things I dislike Bush for, could even say hate him for, but not everything that happened under his administration was something he could control or had any role in, or were done for the reasons that many think they were. With Obama, many of the same things are true, like Bush, he deserves a lot of flack for things he's done and for turning out to be a gigantic hypocrite on a number of issues, but he also gets blamed for a lot of things that he couldn't possible have foreseen or done anything about.

I just don't think it's possible, barring repeated external distracting events, for a President to come out with positive numbers anymore, no matter who it is. There's just too much money and interest in dragging them down for the purposes of others.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Right... but key word was "faulty intelligence". Not some, "back room Halliburton/Military Industrial Complex Villain smoking cigar Pull'n the Bush Puppet Strings" in order to maximize profits at the expense of blood.

Perhaps I won't be able to break your image of a tin-hatter here, but I think its too much of a coincidence that if someone golden parachutes out of a war-profiteeting company into the White House, then that company conveniently gets a 7 billion dollar sweetheart deal on a war support contract for a war premised on bad intelligence, its not much of a stretch to assume collusion between that company and the administration.

But it is just an assumption, based on cynicism rather than crazy, and I'm happy to settle with just saying that the situation was very highly suspicious, as opposed to a foregone conclusion. I don't sit at home biting my nails over it or anything.

You might have a case if he ended up as Secretary of Defense or the President, but the Vice President has no real power over policy(other than being the tie breaker)

The Vice President is basically the appendix of the executive branch.

Not trying to be rude, but sincerely interested if you were alive and cognizant of politics during the Bush/Cheney years. Vice President Cheney was maybe the most powerful Vice President in US history....certainly in my living memory.

It was widely suspected even before the election that a vote for Bush was really a vote for Cheney, and during the administration, it was widely suspected that Bush was just a figurehead for the neo-conservative agenda championed by Cheney, and Cheney was the actual bottom-line decision maker.

I will put on half of a tin hat and say I personally believe the reality was somewhere in the middle. I believe decisions of foreign affairs and economics were pretty much ran by Cheney, while Bush took the lead on more domestic-related issues like Medicaid expansion, attempt at immigration reform, education reform, etc.

 cincydooley wrote:
A chick That was a higher up in CGI federal is a lady Obama friend and they received a "limited bid" contract for the horribly produced healthcare.gov.

Google, an American company that had already done something similar in google health, wasn't even considered.

Well that is good old fashion nepotism at work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
Cheney retires as chairman and CEO of Haliburton in 2000 with a $36 million dollar severance packeage to go be Bush's Vice President.

Before the war starts, Halliburton gets a $7 billion no-bid contract.

It is not very hard to connect the dots here. Beware the military industrial complex and all.

Anyways, I didn't mean that hatred of Obama's policies is likely due to racism...just hatred of the man.


And didn't the US Congress approve actions in Iraq after being presented with faulty intelligence. And I never said we went to Iraq alone, did I?

Next your gonna say Halliburtan caused 911

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Next your gonna say Halliburtan caused 911

It may come as a pleasant surprise to you tha I do not believe that. I do believe that its possible, in my mind likely, that Cheney, directy or indirectly, pressured the US intelligence apparatus to come up with something they could show the world that woujld justify a full scale invasion if Iraq, in order to keep the war drums banging so Halliburton's 7 billion in contracts would not be put at risk.

Remember, this military industrial complex thing is no joke. It actually exists.

From a West Point grad, 5 Star General, Supreme Commander, and Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Anywho, I'm putting my tin hat back on and going to lunch at the re-education cafeteria where the moon landing studio used to be. Cheers!

 Grey Templar wrote:

You might have a case if he ended up as Secretary of Defense or the President, but the Vice President has no real power over policy(other than being the tie breaker)

The Vice President is basically the appendix of the executive branch.

I think that is a pretty major misrepresentation of the office of the Vice President.

I think Obama's numbers are low for a number of reasons.

1) The Legislature has a rock bottom approval rating. It's pretty pathetic. But any nation that is that dissatisfied with politics is going to drag the executive approval rating down as well. That can come from a simple "a pox on all their houses" mindset, or a "if he can't make the legislature do their job then he must be just as bad as them" mindset. Congress might be acting like a bunch of 5 year old children throwing temper tantrum after temper tantrum while refusing to share their toys while walking around class with piss-pants, but at some point people watching that kindergarten train-wreck are going to turn to Obama and talk about what a crappy kindergarten teacher he is because he can't even control his class.
2) He is actually a moderate president. I know that might be blasphemy to the "Obama is a socialist" crowd, but he has actually been walking down the middle on many issues. But many conservatives will always complain that he is too far left and disapprove of his policies. And at the same time many liberals think he is too far right and disapprove of his policies. It's like the SCOTUS: how many decisions did they get right that made people on both sides very very happy, and how many decisions were a 5-4 split along ideological lines? Guess which few cases people are going to remember as evidence for an "activist" or "out of control" SCOTUS.
3) He didn't follow through on many promises. Promises he made to the right AND promises he made to the left. Broken promises = low approval ratings.
4) The economy is getting better, but it's still taking it's time. And people have been hurting for a long long time.
5) Lots of foreign conflicts. The nation is tired of war and doesn't want to get involved in any more fighting. But the nation also doesn't want people to be slaughtered and oppressed. The sheer number of conflicts are going to bring his ratings down, and anything he does is going to bring them down even more from one of those sides. Do nothing and people will complain that he is a heartless monster that abandons all our allies and the US will never be able to protect the world again. Send an army and people will complain that enough of our citizens died a useless death since nothing will change anyway. Do the limited actions we have been doing so far and both sides are going to bitch about it.

Judging any president during their actual term in office is pointless. Look at GWB: people were tired of him because all he was remembered for at the time was a bunch of wars we couldn't win, an economy that tanked, and crappy responses to disasters. People will always remember the crappy stuff first. But since then his approval rating went up, people paid attention to the good laws that were passed under his administration and humanitarian efforts such as the efforts that were made in Africa (and stuff that he continues to be involved in).

I think you need to wait at least 2 terms after they leave office to get a true picture of what they have done. It takes that long for hatred to go away and for policies to actually make a difference in the long term.

Being my last deployment was Contract Oversight. Out of curiosity Jaspar do you know how No Bid Contract works?

Edit

Contracts are awarded the lowest bidder. A lot of us guessed that Cheney had access to the financial cost of logistical support the US Military of OEF/OIF and provided it to hos former firm. Who pretty much flatten the playing field.

What they couldn't support they themselves contracted out

Only in broad strokes. I believe the intention of no bid contracts is to expedite the process when only one company is capable of providing the service desired, or if its such a low $ contract that it really doesn't amount to much. Is this correct?

The logistical details of how this contract gets awarded and so forth, I don't know.

Here's what Wikipedia just told me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_bid_contract):

The term "no-bid contract" is a popular phrase for what is officially known as a "sole source contract" which means that there is only one person or company that can provide the contractual services needed, so any attempt to obtain bids would only result in that person or company bidding on it.

A no-bid contract is awarded usually, but not always, by a government group after soliciting and negotiating with only one firm (see 48 CFR § 2.101). These contracts can be negotiated much more quickly than a typical competitive contract because there is no due-process but on the other hand, they are often fraught with suspicion that the company used illegal or immoral means to exclude competitors (usually by cronyism or bribery).

Nevertheless, U.S. law permits the government to award sole source contracts under specified circumstances (48 CFR Ch. 1, Part 6) but no-bid contracts are illegal under European Union commissioning law.[citation needed] Usually the reason is cost and urgency as a no-bid contract allows the government to get contractors working as quickly as possible in an "urgent" situation.

Examples of potential no-bid contracts include those awarded to Blackwater and Halliburton by the United States government for work relating to the War in Iraq and most currently Amazon sourcing the Kindle for Second Language Teaching overseas by the State Department in a no-bid, $16.5 million contract because “the Amazon Kindle is the only e-Reader on the market that meets the Government’s needs, and Amazon as the only company possessing the essential capabilities required by the Government. It has international 3G, text-to-speech features and a long battery life, which “other e-readers such as the Barnes and Noble Nook, the Sony Reader Daily and Kobe [sic] e-Reader cannot provide."

Legal reasons for sole source contracts in the USA include:[1]

1.only one firm has a product that will meet the projects needs or only one firm can do the work;
2.the existence of an unusual and compelling urgency;
3.for purposes of industrial mobilization or expert services;
4.an international agreement;
5.sole source is authorized or required by law, e.g., socio-economic programs;
6.national security and
7.the public interest.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Please, racism being the reason to dislike Obama is so far down the list of why he is disliked by the majority of people.

Its just a convenient scapegoat from the left to say its just racism.

Jebus. I totally agree with Grey Templar

Example
Holder awhile back mention the the phrase "Take back America" was in a way Racist depending on who's saying it..
Then Biden yesterday or Tueday said the same thing to


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
Only in broad strokes. I believe the intention of no bid contracts is to expedite the process when only one company is capable of providing the service desired, or if its such a low $ contract that it really doesn't amount to much. Is this correct?

The logistical details of how this contract gets awarded and so forth, I don't know.

Basically KBR knew the minimum it cost to support OEF and eventually OIF and combined a contract tailored made.
KBR was kicked out from Afghanistan after the sixth soldier was killed in the shower by faulty wiring. They really got hammered for it for using a master Electrician from India instead of the US as specified in the contract.
Iraq was different being General Odieno said it best "Wht are we switching out horses in the middle of the river?" being we were withdrawing out from Iraq as fast as possible.

Again, I didn't say racism is a reason to explain why many people dislike Obama or disapprove of his job performance.

I said, and I beleive, that racism is the best reason to explain why so many people hate Obama.

This came up because someone wondered why GW Bush and Obama have inspired much more visceral hatred amongst elements of the citizenry than their post-Nixon predecessors.


In any case, if you lived where I live, or somewhere like it, this really would not even be a controversial idea. It would be common sense, because you would hear it expressed with the thinnest of veneers almost every time the subject of Obama comes up and there are no non-white people around. I guess you guys can pretend racist people don't hate Obama, or that racist people don't exist. A little time south of the Mason Dixon will disabuse you of that notion.

 jasper76 wrote:
I said, and I beleive, that racism is the best reason to explain why so many people hate Obama.

And I think that's a silly blanket statement to try and make because it seems, based on your post, that you just live in an area more prone to racism. This does not make statements like the one quoted true

Maybe things are different in Washington State, I'll grant you that.

Where are these people who hate Obama and how many is "many"?

 jasper76 wrote:
Maybe things are different in Washington State, I'll grant you that.

Right, which is why I'm not using Washington state as a basis for blanket statements about people being racist.

Very good. I'll just copy and paste my first statement on the issue, which is not a blanket statement inasmuch as I said I thought "alot of the hatred" is just plain racism, because that's all I meant to say on why I think there is so much visceral hatred towards Obama:

With Obama, I know I'll get flame for this, but I think alot of the hatred (not dissaproval, but hatred) is just plain racism. Older white voters, as well as voters in more racist areas of the country (like where I live), feel entitled that only their kind should run the country. Write this off all you want, but if you live here, you know its true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Where are these people who hate Obama and how many is "many"?

For starters, the South. Then probably the North.

I can't speak too much abot the North, but I live in Virginia outside of the DC area, and racist comments about Obama are so pervasive that you can't do much to avoid them.

Go farther South, things generally get worse in the racism department. This is not news or anything...I'm pretty suprised to find that people don't already know that racism is pervasive in the South, and is applied to people's outlook on Obama and other African-American politicians.

Jaspar.....you going off personnel perception or some establish know documented fact?

I know quite a few Marines...

Dammit Joan Rivers just died

I know some racist donkey-caves that hate he president because he is black. It's pretty hilarious that people would argue that they don't exist.

 Jihadin wrote:
Jaspar.....you going off personnel perception or some establish know documented fact?

I know quite a few Marines...

Dammit Joan Rivers just died

Edit

Example

I know quite a few Marines who hate Obama for not helping to speed up the trial for the Marine stuck in the Mexican Judicial Goat Rope process




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
I know some racist donkey-caves that hate he president because he is black. It's pretty hilarious that people would argue that they don't exist.

KKK is well known establish entity