A confusing concept explained: You are Not Obama.

[cthulu2016]

I have noticed that some folks are confused about the fact that they are not President Obama.

Thus we have dust-ups along these lines:

Speaker 1: Obama sucks.

Speaker 2: No, you suck. Your family sucks. You are scum.

This is viewed as a tit-for-tat exchange. And it would be, if Speaker #2 was President Obama.

But in those rare cases where the second speaker is not president Obama the exchange is someone stating an opinion about a political figure and being attacked personally for holding that opinion.

And speaker #1 did not "start it," because "starting it" would require that Speaker #1 personally attacked speaker #2, which would not be the case unless speaker #2 happened to be President Obama.

Which he usually isn't.

[BlackAndBeyond]

1. Obama

It's disturbing how much some of the members here are emotionally invested in Obama...some of them even claiming to love him. At the end of the day, he's just as much a politician as anyone else and fair game for criticism, even if you support him on 99% of the issues.

[el_bryanto]

2. How much do you support Obama?

I'd say I support him about 60 to 70% of the time. Somewhere in there.

Bryant

[BlackAndBeyond]

5. About the same

More or less. I don't think it'll help matters by getting involved in Ukraine or Syria, for a start. And why is Guantanamo Bay still open?

[tblue37]

81. I am far to the left of Obama, but I won't blame him for Gitmo. He tried to get it closed

but was completely blocked by Congress--mostly by Repubs, but some Dems also helped block his attempts. The president can't always do what he wants to do if he can't get some cooperation from Congress. My guess is that he figured that brick wall was not going to yield, even if he continued to beat his head against it, and so decided to spend his political capital where he had a better chance of actually getting some return on it.

[dilby]

6. I would say 55 to 60%

Which is sad because in 2009 I was around 100%.

[Maedhros]

3. To many, Obama is an empty vessel into which they pour their hopes.

They desperately want Obama to be the President they imagine, so he indeed becomes that President to them.

[BlackAndBeyond]

8. Definitely

There's definitely an element of that. It's easy to see how personality cults originate.

[Maedhros]

19. And, to some extent, I sympathize.

To quote the character of Lewis Rothschild in "The American President":

People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.

[bigwillq]

4. Hello.

Welcome to DU!

[BlackAndBeyond]

7. Hello

And thank you.

[JaneyVee]

13. I don't think its disturbing, I think many people

Identify with his struggle and find inspiration in his life story of being a poor kid who worked hard and climbed the social mobility ladder to become extremely successful. The embodiment of the American dream.

[cali]

16. he was not a poor kid

his mother and father were both well educated- and yes that's quite important. He went to a very elite private high school. He grew up comfortably. He did NOT have a deprived childhood- and that is what saying he was a poor kid implies. Bill Clinton came from lower on the socio-economic ladder than did Barack Obama.

[sufrommich]

25. It has not been "widely reported that Obama's

mother worked for the CIA",unless by widely reported you mean Infowars.

[sufrommich]

29. Where did I deny that? You claimed it's been widely

reported that his mom worked for the CIA,the only place that's being "reported" is on sites that also "report" that his birth certificate is fake.

[sufrommich]

33. I know it employed some CIA operatives,that doesn't

mean Obama was one of them. Seriously dude,you're this close to calling Obama a Manchurian president. Maybe that crap plays well with Alex Jones fans but it's has no place here.

[sufrommich]

36. Your "facts" would fit better over at Free Republic.

How do you feel about Obama's birth certificate?

[sufrommich]

40. You're not "criticizing a politician" you're making

lame,delusional accusations that both Barack Obama and his mom are/were CIA plants! When someone mentioned that Obama got into a private school through a scholarship, you hint that "he had strings pulled". Nothing you've claimed is grounded in reality and is frequently posited by freepers and Infowar nutcases.

What does free speech have to do with anything? Are you being threatened with prison for posting nonsense on DU? Lame.

[sufrommich]

42. Your "facts" are tinfoil nonsense. nt

[Number23]

65. + a brazillion

Beautifully handled. Well done.

[msanthrope]

70. I wonder if the raccoon had worms. nt

[Number23]

71. !

[msanthrope]

72. I'm here all week! Don't forget to tip your waiter! nt

[edgineered]

76. has?

[pintobean]

82. Just came over from another thread

that linked here. I missed out on the actual posts, but what was there is obvious. Your comment gave me a good laugh to start the day with. Thanks!

[sufrommich]

77. It's pretty amazing to see that kind of

Alex Jones crap here on DU.Both the extreme right and left loves them some conspiracy theories.

[Number23]

95. The orgy of self deletes tells the tale better than anything else. And as someone already noted

that person is a GD Host too. Sure explains alot around here.

I hope you don't self delete your posts as well. You can get a pretty good picture of how idiotic those posts must have been just by reading how incredulous your responses to them were.

[lumpy]

58. Your facts are in question and your intent in stating them.

[Ikonoklast]

92. And that poster is a GD host.

Makes one think a bit about agendas.

[lumpy]

57. Is that bad? I know of someone who worked at the stock exchange scrubbing floors.

[Drunken Irishman]

51. Can you please show where it's been widely reported that Obama's mother worked for the CIA?

And no, I won't take links to Inforwars or World Net Daily.

[MineralMan]

64. We can see the original version.

Please spend more time checking sources. You are simply wrong, as are your sources.

[JaneyVee]

22. He grew up in a single parent house and got into

That "elite private school" on scholarship, iow worked hard.

[Aerows]

28. Or had strings pulled

which is a lot more likely.

[joshcryer]

45. By who?

WTF?

[JaneyVee]

47. Next they'll be calling him Barry Soetoro and asking

to see his birth certificate and Columbia ID.

[joshcryer]

79. This message was self-deleted by its author

Not really. Apparently the whole BS CIA thing was derived from Obama working at BIC. Too cute. That shit happened when he was literally a baby. But nope, because he chose to be employed by (liberal) BIC, dude is a CIA agent, as well as his mom.

I admit, I've self deleted my replies to a post before, particularly when I felt they were anti-LGBT (then being attacked by DU's anti-LGBT squad), but this is a whole new level of self-deletions, a poster hiding their deeply unseated beliefs about Obama, who is and was a mostly self-made man. Hell, I'll even say, Obama was lucky, but he wasn't some sort of "installed" entity.

[JI7]

50. by the same ones who planted the fake birth certicate so he can run for Pres

some 50 years later

[Number23]

68. Girl, did I call it or what??

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11875895

[JaneyVee]

46. Huh? Are you a birther?

[JI7]

49. WTF ?

[JaneyVee]

52. Funny how this sub-thread eviscerates OPs point.

Reality: Someone says something good about Obama, THEN haters chime in.

[JI7]

53. and uses the most bizarre right wing attacks to do it

[Number23]

69. Five minutes of reading GD would have eviscerated the OP's "point"

The idiocy in this thread is absolutely NOTHING new here. Which we all knew already.

[lumpy]

59. Your reply indicates that you are SPECULATING that Obama had strings pulled to get into school.

I.E. "which is a lot more likely" your reply.

[tblue37]

83. If he was so comfortably placed, why was he unable to afford new shoes when he got a hole in the

sole of the old ones? We've all seen the pics. He also had trouble affording airplane tickets and hotel accommodations when he started his political career, and only the money from sales of his book enabled him to pay off student loans, because he and Michelle were doing poorly paid community organizer work instead of remunerative coorporate legal work after law school.

[lumpy]

55. Not only that. With many people deprivation can cause resent, anger and worse.

[840high]

54. Where do you get the "poor kid".

[WinkyDink]

73. Bwahaha! "Poor kid"?! Perhaps you are thinking of another B. H. Obama??

[FSogol]

9. I miss the old, "Obama should fix everything. That's what I would do posts."

[Aerows]

11. I'm sure you do

Because the "Okay, I have criticism against Obama" posts are the first ones you jump into the describe the post as A) Stupid B) the poster a hater and C) You aren't sufficiently grateful that Romney is NOT president.

[FSogol]

12. Well, since we aren't making it personal...

[Aerows]

17. So it is okay for thee

but not for anyone else?

[FSogol]

30. I have no idea what you are talking about.

[lumpy]

60. One thing I have learned when reading your posts, they are toxic.

[treestar]

86. Come to think of it, you really aren't sufficiently grateful that Rmoney isn't POTUS

Republicans still have quite a bit of voter support. This is why it's dumb to focus on blaming Democrats. They are operating in a world where Republicans still have influence.

[JVS]

10. I'm Spartacus!

[Skittles]

15. I can kick Spartacus ass

I'm just letting you know

[JaneyVee]

14. Can we get some links to those tit for tat exchanges?

[cali]

18. lol. seriously? they're all over GD.

[JaneyVee]

24. I work 10 to 12hrs a day. Im just asking for some links.

[1000words]

20. I don't understand why folks take it all so personally.

Obama doesn't know he's been "bashed," nor would he care if he did.

[Aerows]

23. I'd expect as President that he has been criticized far more harshly

But the real reason for those types of posts are the "shut up" brigade. You aren't supposed to speak a discouraging word, even if it is well-deserved.

[lumpy]

61. We expect truthful criticism based on reason.

[bigwillq]

56. I agree.

Good post.

[Gothmog]

26. President Obama is a lawyer and he used a legal explanation of his position

Remember that President Obama is a lawyer and a law professor. What President Obama did in his speech was to distinguish the Iraq war from the situation in Crimea. Here is a simplified explanation of this concept. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/distinguish

Distinguish
To set apart as being separate or different; to point out an essential disparity.

To distinguish one case from another case means to show the dissimilarities between the two. It means to prove a case that is cited as applicable to the case currently in dispute is really inapplicable because the two cases are different.

The Iraq war is a very different situation compared to the conduct of Russia in annexing Crimea. In his speech, President Obama did not defend the Iraq war but merely explained why the Iraq war was not relevant to the conduct of Russia in annexing Crimea. President Obama did mention in his speech that he opposed the war but it would have hurt the legal argument he was making to go into why he opposed and such opposition would not have been relevant to the legal argument that President Obama was making about the Russian annexation of Crimea.

I personally hate bush, cheney, rice and rumsfeld for lying to the US about the reasons for Iraq. I was opposed to the invasion at the time and was monitoring this board for those discussions.

However in his speech in Brussels, President Obama did not defend the war in Iraq but was refuting the argument made by Putin. President Obama did a good job of distinguishing the Iraq war from Russia's actions in annexing Crimea. As a lawyer, there is a huge difference between making a legal argument and defending the Iraq invasion.

[joshcryer]

44. This post is correct.

Need more like it.

[lumpy]

62. I agree. I appreciate fact more than speculation or unspecified criticism.

[joshcryer]

78. Objective fact is my thing.

If people don't post it, I get bored, quite easily. I only wish my phone allowed me to type as fast or as efficiently as the keyboard. I'd be all over it, daily. Unfortunately, I am unable to post that frequently and many completely asinine posts sink. And I frankly don't think some posts deserve the kick.

[WinkyDink]

74. Then perhaps he ought to have responded as a man, not as a lawyer.

[lovemydog]

91. What do you think he should have said?

[Gothmog]

94. Russia has 50,000 to 100,000 troops on the eastern border of Ukraine

President Obama's first priority is to rally support of our allies and to convince Putin that the international community will not stand for further annexation of parts of Ukraine. To accomplish this goal, President Obama had to address the justifications being used by Putin. I think that President Obama did a good job in accomplishing that objective.

The purpose of President Obama's speech was not to make Iraq war haters happy but to answer the justifications being used by Putin for his annexation of Crimea. The fact that Putin called President Obama on Friday (one day after this speech) to ask for negotiations is telling to me. Sec. of State Kerry is headed now to Paris to meet with his Russian counterpart.

[lovemydog]

89. Precisely

[DanTex]

31. A few things.

First of all, as the responses to this thread show, there is plenty of name-calling and insulting from the anti-Obama side.

Secondly, when some teabagger takes an idiotic attack at the president -- let's say for example, that this teabagger refuses to do any basic research on ACA, and instead instinctively blames Obama -- then calling said teabagger an idiot is appropriate. I mean, the anti-Obama folks insist that the standard should be that Obama shouldn't be treated any different than Bush simply because he's a Democrat. I think it's only natural that DUers making dumb and inflammatory attacks on the president shouldn't be treated any differently that teabaggers making the same dumb and inflammatory attacks on the president.

[lumpy]

63. Hear hear

[Capt. Obvious]

66. I haven't seen any actual Obamabots here.

[FSogol]

67. +1. n/t

[greatauntoftriplets]

35. We are all President Obama!

[cthulu2016]

37. Lady... you ain't even Spartacus. (that is a joke, not a criticism)

[pnwmom]

39. The confused people are the ones who use the term "Obamabots"

to refer to human beings who generally support the President.

[Captain Stern]

48. This shouldn't be a good post, but it is.

I can understand that people can strongly disagree about things..but I can't understand when people take offense about criticism, or names, or mockery, directed at public figures that they don't personally know.

I think President Obama has done pretty much as good as he can with the cards he was dealt, but I get that other people might not feel the same way. I'm sure not going to get personally offended because somebody else feels differently. I'm sure President Obama has dealt with things that are far more difficult than what we say/or don't say here. He'll be fine.

[LostOne4Ever]

75. Soooo

Let me see if I got this straight.

So long as the person speaker 1 is talking about is not you, and is a politician you should not take it personally. Let say this is the exchange:

Speaker 1: Senator So-in-so sucks!
Speaker 2: My brother does not suck! You suck!

I mean it does fit the example given? But maybe its not fair to use a family member in the example.

Speaker 1: Senator So-in-so sucks!
Speaker 2: My best friend does not suck! You suck!

Maybe it should not be someone I personally have a relationship with

Speaker 1: Senator So-in-so sucks!
Speaker 2: Senator So-in-so does not suck! He pulled saved my brother's life pulling him out of the way of a speeding car! You suck!

Lets remove myself even further

Speaker 1:MLK sucks!
Speaker 2: How dare you! MLK worked, and sacrificed his life trying to make life better for other people; and he did more for this country than your ignorant butt will EVER DO. You are the one who sucks.

And thus the point im trying to make. The problem is that speaker 2 does not need a personal relationship with the subject of the conversation to take speaker 1's comments personally. All they need is a sense of appreciation for the man. This is especially true if speaker 1's comments are unfounded or inflammatory.

Many of us have that appreciation for President Obama. For things like FINALLY getting some form national healthcare coverage, we believe he has done a huge amount of good for this country. If you disagree, fine, state your case and lets have a civil argument over it.

But if you are going to be insulting and make allegation that aren't true or are distortions of fact, speaker 2 is justified in getting upset or angry.

Ultimately had speaker 1 TRIED to be civil, and based their criticism off of supported arguments the debate would not have deteriorated into insults. Both parties do indeed bare responsibility for the flamefest. Speaker one for starting it, and speaker 2 for responding in kind.

I get that many posters here are very very angry at Obama. I get that many posters here feel betrayed. I just ask that you try to see things from our point of view too. We are not going to let insults to a man who we feel has helped MILLIONS of american (which very well could include us or our families) get health insurance and the financial assistance we so desperately need, go unanswered. And yeah, some of us are going to take those insults personally. Its basic human nature.

If you really care about all the flame wars, the best way to stop it is accept that President Obama, and his supporters here on this site, are all human beings. Human beings who care about others, and who get mad at times. The same goes for us.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If both sides would respect this philosophy DU would be infinitely better off. Till then there will be threads and counter threads and counter counter threads of insults and profanity till we hit rock bottom.

[ProfessorGAC]

80. Pretty Sophomoric

Very two dimensional and actually doesn't reflect the facts of the recent wars around here.

IMO, an awful lot of the "anti" posts were about tone and were not direct shots at the poster of an unpopular opinion.

You are grouping every opposing comment as ad hominem when i think you know that's not the case. And, you also presume that an opposition to a comment's tone or content is not an equally valid opinion.

Just because someone uses rude language on a forum doesn't make their post more valid or more thoughtful.

[cthulu2016]

87. Sorry the post you *imagine* that you read displeases you.

The OP is about what it is about. It does not "group every opposing comment." It does not purport to be a comprehensive treatment of "the facts of the recent wars." It does not say, or even vaguely suggest that "rude language makes posts more valid"

You seem disturbed that it is not about what you want it to be about, and displeased that it states things it does not state.

Okey-dokey.

[treestar]

84. False.

Speaker 2 defends the POTUS.

Really this "we are such poor victims" is getting out of hand. For a board meant for Democrats, they get away with incredible things when it comes to their opinions of Democrats.

[cthulu2016]

88. You have quite summed up the point of the OP

Yes, when one rationalizes that their own anti-social behavior constitutes "defending the President" it reduces the shame normally associated with such behavior.

[treestar]

90. Maybe some of them start out insulting the President-basher

but it's because they've heard so much of it from the same poster before and they know they won't get anywhere with it.

Still you falsely claimed people are never just defending or pushing back on the latest "criticism" (rarely constructive) and are always insulting the poor "critic."

And it's not like the critical side never insults the supporters. Enough jokes about pom poms, etc. for you not to be able to claim you've never seen that.

[Bluenorthwest]

93. Very well put.

nt

[baldguy]

85. This is true even if Speaker #1 is Sarah Palin? Or one of her parrots?

Less and less Obama's critics show themselves to be honest & principled, as they repeat the RW lunatic libertarian fringe talking points which paint him as stupid, sub-human & generally dangerous more and more.