Obama vs. Bush Derangement Syndrom

[DrBaltar]

What rock have you been living under? Once Obama became president GUN sales SKYROCKETED and guess what, those sales haven't come down since. Even rusty old guns once left for junk are demanding exuberant prices

I don't normally keep up with NRA issues, although I think their fear is reasonable. BO says he won't take peoples guns, but what's that they say about politicians whose lips are moving? All of us at Nasa are scratching our heads wondering what happened after he canned human space flight after saying during the campaign that he supported manned missions to the moon and mars. I think there's a level of paranoia about guns every time there's a democrat is in the white house.

I live in PA and the racial undertones to the gun sales is omnipresent.. you have your redneck whackos who believe everything Libmaugh says and you have your wanna scotsman pride wankers who are too stuck in their white gun toten America to think a black man can do us anygood.

where do you live to not see this stuff??

Texas. Although I try to avoid as many rednecks as I can. Yes it can be a challenge. But I see forums, talk to people at work, talk to family and friends... I don't see race come up that much and there's no reason to. There are plenty of valid reasons to vote him and the democratic congress out ASAP.

 

[Supernovae]

I don't normally keep up with NRA issues, although I think their fear is reasonable. BO says he won't take peoples guns, but what's that they say about politicians whose lips are moving? All of us at Nasa are scratching our heads wondering what happened after he canned human space flight after saying during the campaign that he supported manned missions to the moon and mars. I think there's a level of paranoia about guns every time there's a democrat is in the white house.

You can say the same for republicans.. anytime there is a republican in office there is a general level of paranoia about common sense, human rights, jobs, economy and environment.

Texas. Although I try to avoid as many rednecks as I can. Yes it can be a challenge. But I see forums, talk to people at work, talk to family and friends... I don't see race come up that much and there's no reason to. There are plenty of valid reasons to vote him and the democratic congress out ASAP.

Honestly, I can only think of one and it was a pretty non partisan mistake - the patriot act.

Otherwise, he's got the economy on the rebound, he's creating jobs, he has set forth a new plan for NASA, he's not afraid to speak to issues, he's got REAL issues on his mind.

I mean, if you want to get down to it, look at the statistics of people who voted for Obama and voted for McCain.. The people who voted for McCain overwhelimingly did so because they're Anti Abortion, Against Gay Marriage and believe in Christian Conservative values. Meanwhile people who voted for Obama selected they did so because of the Economy, Jobs and Environment.

i don't like everything about him, but i don't pretend whomever is president can get 100% everything I want. This is a democracy where everyone is represented in one way or another.

 

[DrBaltar]

The primary reason that I am a Dem is because they usually seem to be slightly more honest, and much more open minded.

Wow, the honesty thing is why I vote mainly republican. In the 2000 election I had to think long and hard about who I was going to vote for. I listed all the issues of Bush & Gore and in the end I voted for Bush. Then I saw how Gore and other democrats acted with all the recounts and lawsuits etc. I could see that the republicans were coming out on top with each count and was wondering when Gore would man up and accept defeat. It went all the way to the supreme court though. In counts following their decision republicans still came out on top. So wth?

Then I saw how the country was pretty much united after 9/11 and through the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq. At least up until the 2004 campaigning started. Then all the democrats realized they had a race to win and decided to stop being so agreeable. Bush was singled out as the only one who claimed WMD was in Iraq. Look here to see what a crock that is:


Then came Michael Moore with his wonderfully honest movies, and the left-wing media's BS and total lack of coverage of anything that went right in Iraq. (Yes I know the right wing media also spews BS). There were mostly baseless accusations about Katrina. And then you could see how more and more democrats were overcome by Bush Derangement Syndrome.

 

[headscratcher4]

All of us at Nasa are scratching our heads wondering what happened after he canned human space flight after saying during the campaign that he supported manned missions to the moon and mars..

Just as an aside, as it really isn't on point...so, one of the reasons you're scratching your head about Obama is that he is a politician...and seemingly one that gored your particular ox? I mean, he's a politician who, in the midst of the greatest economic crisis (which he inherited, BTW, even if he is getting close to full ownership today) the country has seen in over 60 years, when people are screaming bloody murder about big government and deficiets and spending priorities, determined as President and the one vested with making tough decisions (not at candidate when all politicians say what is most expedient) that your agency and its mission was not or should not be a spending priority -- given everythign else that has to be done in the country.

I support NASA in general. I think more manned missions to the moon would be great, interesting and would leverage ever more technology...but I completely understand that when you're running a trillion plus deficiet and have to figure out spending priorities, that there might be more pressing issues.

I'd feel the same way if Bush cut NASA too...

Don't know why your statement got me started, and I suspect you aren't like one of the early teapartiers who carried signs like: keep your government hands of my Medicare, but I just encounter too many people here in Washington (and elsewhere) who want government to solve some problem, cut some program, reduce some activity so long as the ones that pay, employ or provide protection to their special interest is left alone.

 

[dudalb]

Anybody who thinks that BO or most Democrats are going to make Gun Control a major issue since it has proven to be Political Kryptonite to them in many elections is delusional.
Yes, there is a small but vocal group of Democrats who are zealots on Gun Control, but their proposols are either watered down to the point of being maningless or never see the light of day on the floor.
And if I though the Dems were pushing draconian Gun laws, I would be the first to be screaming about it.

 

[dudalb]

Just as an aside, as it really isn't on point...so, one of the reasons you're scratching your head about Obama is that he is a politician...and seemingly one that gored your particular ox? I mean, he's a politician who, in the midst of the greatest economic crisis (which he inherited, BTW, even if he is getting close to full ownership today) the country has seen in over 60 years, when people are screaming bloody murder about big government and deficiets and spending priorities, determined as President and the one vested with making tough decisions (not at candidate when all politicians say what is most expedient) that your agency and its mission was not or should not be a spending priority -- given everythign else that has to be done in the country.

I support NASA in general. I think more manned missions to the moon would be great, interesting and would leverage ever more technology...but I completely understand that when you're running a trillion plus deficiet and have to figure out spending priorities, that there might be more pressing issues.

I'd feel the same way if Bush cut NASA too...

Don't know why your statement got me started, and I suspect you aren't like one of the early teapartiers who carried signs like: keep your government hands of my Medicare, but I just encounter too many people here in Washington (and elsewhere) who want government to solve some problem, cut some program, reduce some activity so long as the ones that pay, employ or provide protection to their special interest is left alone.

Everybody is opposed to Massive Government Spending..except for the Spending they like.

 

[DrBaltar]

You can say the same for republicans.. anytime there is a republican in office there is a general level of paranoia about common sense, human rights, jobs, economy and environment.

With the republicans I have a paranoia about turning the US into a theocracy. I know some would like to, but not sure if they would really go that far. And the environment as well.

As or the economy, if the republicans would act like republicans and not spend so much that would be preferable. But they spend nowhere NEAR as much as under the Obama administration.

Otherwise, he's got the economy on the rebound, he's creating jobs, he has set forth a new plan for NASA, he's not afraid to speak to issues, he's got REAL issues on his mind.

Real issues like national health care? That's not what people were crying out for. They wanted jobs. The economy started to rebound before the stimulus money started getting spent. And what do you suppose will happen when the treasury wants to get back the $trillions that were printed? They will raise interest rates through the roof to get it back so it can be destroyed. So much money was printed it nearly put the US dollar at risk, and that still may happen. His new plan for Nasa is a joke. There's a thread on that here. It seems like another attempt to tear down what Bush started.

i don't like everything about him, but i don't pretend whomever is president can get 100% everything I want. This is a democracy where everyone is represented in one way or another.

Which is another problem. The majority of the population did not want nationalized health care. Yet congress used every loophole they could to cram this bill through. Despite the fact we can't afford it and that it affects every American. We were not represented on national health care.

 

[headscratcher4]

Anybody who thinks that BO or most Democrats are going to make Gun Control a major issue since it has proven to be Political Kryptonite to them in many elections is delusional.
Yes, there is a small but vocal group of Democrats who are zealots on Gun Control, but their proposols are either watered down to the point of being maningless or never see the light of day on the floor.
And if I though the Dems were pushing draconian Gun laws, I would be the first to be screaming about it.

NO American politician of either party is going to make gun control an issue...especially Barak Obama. It was never clear to me that he ever would...he talked about it only in the most general, Democratic talking points sort of way...not a passionate crusader by any means.

Interesting aside, however, one wonders if (and I don't know how this would come together) the "We aren't doing enought to fight terrorism or even call it terrorism (torture them long an hard till they talk) crowd and the anti-gun forces might not have some sort of convergence post NYC bombing attempt...I saw somewhere where a NYC official was decrying how easy it was for the bomber to by a gun a month or so ago. He seemed to be arguing that naturalized citizens should have less freedom to by guns than native born citizens. Not sure how he thinks that would work or how it would be consistent with even liberal interpretations of the 2nd Amendement little less the whole Constitution...but in its way it isn't any different than McCain or Leiberman arguing that the Bomber shouldn't have been accorded his Miranda rights (even though he was an American citizen) because intelligence and the war on terror required strong actions against suspects....

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Unjustifiable fear was still unjustified fear. That most certainly isn't an excuse and ads to the ver ODS we're speaking to.

I was not arguing it was justified; I was merely stating there are options other than racism behind an increase in gun sales.

My direct experience though is that everyone I witnessed who jumped on the bandwagon to buy more guns did so because of the fear you speak of and because the dude was a black man who isn't a US citizen and they couldn't trust.

I don't know "everyone" or how typical your experience might be -- or even how that breaks down within even those people you know (for example, did some people say they were buying guns because a black man was President, or did you infer that with some/all?). And, more to the point, I don't think you can know how typical that is, either. I have read about the increase in guns sales, but have not heard "we have a black President" cited as a reason to date. Is there anything apart from anecdote?

 

[DrBaltar]

Just as an aside, as it really isn't on point...

I support NASA in general. I think more manned missions to the moon would be great, interesting and would leverage ever more technology...but I completely understand that when you're running a trillion plus deficiet and have to figure out spending priorities, that there might be more pressing issues.

Well from my perspective, and yes I am biased, money spent through Nasa has been a good investment in technologies and preserving our leadership in aerospace. So you get something for your investment. Also it's the one government agency that most people support. And last but not least, again from my perspective, these multi-trillion dollar spendulous packages were BS. The economy had started to bounce back on its own before the stimulous package money even started to be spent. And understand that it will actually cost more money to cancel existing nasa programs and start on Obama's new programs. As Senator Mikulski (democrat) said recently, "The US cannot afford a new NASA every four years." The plan that Nasa had under Bush was approved by both sides of congress for the last 6 years. Obama's plan has been criticized by every single congressman that spoke during the hearings on his new plan.

 

[headscratcher4]

I don't disagree with your points about NASA...but I am not the President setting the priorities. And Mikulski is right, save that we do change NASA priorities about every four years, just as we do defense, health, education, NIH, etc. Such is the election and budget process.

We will simply have to disagree on this "The economy had started to bounce back on its own before the stimulous package money even started to be spent. And understand that it will actually cost more money to cancel existing nasa programs and start on Obama's new programs." I believe there is pretty good evidence that this was not the case and that while there was much wrong with the packages passed by Bush and followed-on by Obama, things could have been a lot worse.

 

[Manopolus]

Wow, the honesty thing is why I vote mainly republican.

Perhaps we have very different BS meters. To me, anyone that does not try to make an issue into a black vs white dichotomy seems to be a bit more honest... they see both sides of the equation, and are perhaps even more honest with themselves. Dems tend to have such an attitude more than Republicans. This is why they are often accused of "waffling."

Affairs and such, as well as allegations of pot smoking, etc. do not really equate to dishonesty to me. They really have very little with what we are hiring our politicians to actually do. Ad hom attacks have very little impact on me. I am more concerned with how they think and their vision of our future as a country.

Theoretically, I would say if you consider Republicans more honest, it would be on matters of "character" and a more formal "public image." My own judgments are more based on other factors... like how they campaign, etc.

To get back on topic -- I would say that it is impossible for the main body of the democratic party to be nearly as deranged as what I hear from the right. Few of us think of things in the black vs white/good vs evil perspective. Admittedly, we include the far left in our ranks... but they have never been the norm. By contrast, paranoia of government and fear mongering are actually the norm for republicans, making it not so much a derangement as it is the status quo.

Then again, when looking at the opposition's point of view, do we all tend to see the extremes more than the center? Perhaps.

 

[Snide]

I could see that the republicans were coming out on top with each count and was wondering when Gore would man up and accept defeat. It went all the way to the supreme court though.

And four of nine on the SC agreed with Gore, not to mention scores of constitutional law professors. I guess your idea of when one should "man up" is different from mine.

Bush was singled out as the only one who claimed WMD was in Iraq.

That's really how you saw it, in your unbiased opinion?

 

[thaiboxerken]

ODS is worse, as it's based on Obama being..who he is.

BDS was based on the actual, stupid policies Bush implemented.

 

[gnome]

I feel like this is a comparison between the rabid fans of two rival football teams, and trying to prove something by judging who puts more face and body paint on in their colors.

So what if you get the answer, what does it mean?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I feel like this is a comparison between the rabid fans of two rival football teams, and trying to prove something by judging who puts more face and body paint on in their colors.

This.

But add half of each side appears to be color blind, as well.

 

[Supernovae]

I don't know "everyone" or how typical your experience might be -- or even how that breaks down within even those people you know (for example, did some people say they were buying guns because a black man was President, or did you infer that with some/all?). And, more to the point, I don't think you can know how typical that is, either. I have read about the increase in guns sales, but have not heard "we have a black President" cited as a reason to date. Is there anything apart from anecdote?

I *HAD* an eclectic friend mix until Obama got into office. Prior to his election i just took these "Friends" with a grain of salt and still could have fun pounding a beer or working on a car with them but not anymore.

There really is a huge quantifiable group of people who hate Obama with a passion and not only bought guns because they feared the so called socialist wrath but they purposefully bought guns because there was a "sand ****** in office".

I mean really.. it is useless to compare ODS to BDS if people want to be blind or ignorant.. as you have to be blind and ignorant to play partisan politics and stand your party line to the death as some people chose to do, but the simple fact of the matter is i didn't ever see "1,000,000 people praying for Bush's death" or a rush on Guns or any of that with BDS..

How about i simply ask you to prove it isn't racially themed?

 

[Supernovae]

Isn't at least part of that attributable to a fear -- whether justified or not -- that guns laws were going to get harder under Obama, given the stereotypical left's position on gun ownership (and, IIRC, some policy statements during the campaign)?

Gun control was never a focal point of Obama's administration nor campaign. If you want to support your argument by calling it unjustified justifiable fear because of "Stereotypes" then by the same same "unjustified justifieid stereotype" the hatred for Obama is quite frankly RACIAL. What evidence is there contrary to that? I can ask these very same people that can't call Obama by any normal name why they hate them and every hatred is in one way or another a stereotypical racial response. Its the only why they can handle fear is to make fun of it and sadly its the fear that is unjust, not Obama himself.

Or, to be more direct: is racism the only explanation, or could you show your work between more gun sales and racism?

When Bill Clinton won, there wasn't a Rush to buy more weapons was there? When Gore was running for prez there wasn't a promise to buy more Weapons was there?

Where was the justification for the hatred this time around? What stems that hatred? Why hate someone just because they're "liberal" - who demonized "liberals" - isn't the "Demonization" of liberal people just another form of bigotry and subservice racism without being applied to ones skin color but theory of government?

I'm not calling people who hate liberals racist by any means, but if you want to play everything in the gray area and ignore the overt racial tones of the hatred then anyone can play that game.

 

[BibleWelt]

Krauthammer's original definition of BDS was: "The acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush."

Meaning, to me, that someone like Bugliosi would qualify, but Kanye West would not.

Is this being taken into account when diagnosing ODS? Are these people "otherwise normal"?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

How about i simply ask you to prove it isn't racially themed?

Prove the negative of *your* original assertion?

That doesn't work in any other section of the forums, I don't see why it should here.

If it's just your opinion and it's limited to anecdotes, that's fine. I am not arguing you are necessarily wrong, I just question whether you are necessarily right. That's why I asked what your opinion is based on, and whether any of your circle of acquaintences actually said they were going to buy guns because a black man has been elected President, or whether you just know what they're really thinking.

Is there anything else you've got to make your assertion on?