Skip to content

Why Do You Hate Americans So Much?

© Tom Tomorrow



  1. ptgoodman wrote:

    It’s not clear that Republicans like the U.S., given that they support such destructive policies. And look at Limbaugh, Palin, Breitbart, and the entire Fox news crew who spend most of their time trashing President Obama and the U.S. If this is love of country, then…

    Tuesday, October 16, 2012 at 1:23 am | Permalink
  2. ebdoug wrote:

    Imagine living with that much Hate. All this came out in the 1930s on in Germany. All the same things. History repeating itself.

    Tuesday, October 16, 2012 at 7:32 am | Permalink
  3. PatriotSGT wrote:

    PTGOODMAN – Were there many DEMS trashing Dubya during his presidency or the republican congress? Was that love of our country?

    EBDOUG -you never saw swastikas painted on pictures of Bush or the one of him with bullets holes in his head? I’ve never seen an Obama photo with a bullet hole in his head or a Hitler mustache, but I’m sure there are some derogatory photos of him.

    I think there are plenty of examples of hate for both sides to go around. I do not approve of or condone hateful speech or actions against any person or party. I would fight to the death to defend that person. I think it’s just an attempt to squash freedom of speech. Stating ones preference or opinion as long as that statement doesn’t denigrate or belittle.
    I do not approve of right wingers bashing the President personally and i do not approve of labeling an entire party because of a few. My oldest son, my brother, many of my military friends are republican. When I’ve stood on battlefields with mortars exploding and bullets flying no one ever asked, gee is my buddy a republican or democrat. It doesn’t matter at that point he is an American and if he needs you, then you are there for him. On an occasion when I held a dying Soldier in my arms and talked to him because he was a kid who would never see home again. I was willing to stay with him so he wouldn’t die alone 8000 miles from home and I didn’t check his political affiliation first. Saying Republicans or Democrats or Obama or Romney doesn’t love this country is treason in my book and spreads the hate. We all love this country, we have different ideas on how to make it better, but we’d all die to save it, at least I would, would you?.

    Tuesday, October 16, 2012 at 8:41 am | Permalink
  4. Iron Knee wrote:

    Good post PSgt, but I just want to point out a few things:

    Photos of Obama with a bullet hole — (posted by a police officer) (from a Republican committee in Virginia)

    Photos (lots of them) of Obama as Hitler —
    Right-wing media comparing Obama to Hitler —

    I agree that some on the far left also did similar things to Dubya, and I did not approve of them either.

    The problem is that there are fascist tendencies in the Republican party (anti-immigrant policies, racism, suppression of opposition, obsession with national security, mixing of government and religion, protection of corporate power, anti-Union policies, disdain for intellectuals and the arts — see But it is difficult to have a discussion about this because of how loaded and overused the term “fascist” has become.

    Tuesday, October 16, 2012 at 11:30 am | Permalink
  5. Arthanyel wrote:

    Bill O”Reilly summed it up brilliantly at the end of The Rumble In The Air Conditioned Auditorium. He said the problem is capitalism – if you are a good hater, you can make a lot of money. There are a lot of Americans buying it. And as long as they do, a lot of other people will sell it to them. he goes on to say that many “pundits” including Fox News don’t actually believe what they are spouting, they just do it because they get paid. A lot.

    PSgt is right – if we are all in this together (and we are) then specific affiliation shouldn’t matter.

    We also know for a fact that even in Congress, the party power-mongers pull the strings and even their own party members that don’t toe the line get disenfranchised, minimized, or defeated.

    So for once I agree with Bill O’Reilly. The problem is money. We need to reform the way campaigns are financed and change the primary systems so the power-mongers can’t pull the strings to fix government. That won’t get rid of the hate economy, but it will blunt its influence on government.

    As for self-selecting hate channels on both sides, unfortunately we are probably stuck with that.

    Tuesday, October 16, 2012 at 12:10 pm | Permalink
  6. PatriotSGT wrote:

    I agree completely that there are some incredible idiots on the right who really do hate immigrants, minorities, etc. But just like the few idiots who subverted the occupy protests and got all the press the idiots on the right are “ironically” the minority of that group as well.

    I also agree with your pointing out mixing of religion and government. I believe there should be a separation of church and state and I believe that religious views have no place in policy making. That also goes both ways and to both parties. On marriage and abortion the Right should not seek to define either in religious terms as a reason to allow or not, but the Left should not support government/taxpayer legislation that directly disregards them either. Terms like “in the bible marriage is defined as …” should not be allowed in the discussion. Equally, taxpayer funded abortion or birth control when all must contribute to it should not be allowed.

    I guess we need to invent some more current language leaving the baggage of the past behind.

    Tuesday, October 16, 2012 at 12:20 pm | Permalink
  7. PatriotSGT wrote:

    posted right after Arthanyel who makes some awesome points and is correct IMO. Media greed is driving most of the election nonsense. I wish we could have some referendum type of votes on natioanl issues that effect all of us. Lets take a vote on healt care, gay marriage, contraception, continuing the wars and setting our borrowing limits. Even how many days off congressmen and elected officals get per year. How about voting on determining their pay or how many terms they can serve. I guess we indirectly do vote on that though.

    Tuesday, October 16, 2012 at 12:26 pm | Permalink
  8. Iron Knee wrote:

    Ironically, that is something the founding fathers did not want to happen — direct democracy by referendum. Originally, senators and even the president were not selected by popular vote. Not to mention that only white male property owners could vote (10-16% of the population!)

    Tuesday, October 16, 2012 at 12:44 pm | Permalink
  9. wildwood wrote:

    I agree with you PatriotSGT until you get to funding of birth control and abortion.

    I think birth control should be encouraged by any means. A woman should not have to get pregnant if she doesn’t want to. Add to that, she should not have to bear a child that she doesn’t want.

    Many many women are taking birth control for other reasons. Should they have to suffer because the medicine also stops pregnancy? I also think there are instances where abortions should be paid for by everyone.

    I don’t approve of my tax dollars going to religious charities. So religion organizations should not complain if some of their tax dollars go to birth control and abortion.

    We are all paying for things that we would not pay for given the choice. Too bad.

    I also think there should be a drive towards taxing religious enterprises. If you want to interfere in politics then you should pay taxes.

    Tuesday, October 16, 2012 at 4:09 pm | Permalink
  10. ebdoug wrote:

    I still think that Bill O”Reilly gets the fall out from all the Fox News Hate. He has changed so much in the last four years. He look haggard as though he sold his soul to the devil.

    Tuesday, October 16, 2012 at 5:21 pm | Permalink
  11. patriotSGT wrote:

    Wildwood- I would not be against all gov’t paidfor contraception or even certain cases of abortion. I kinda straddle the abortion issue in that I’m ok with 1st trimester abortion but not later unless the child is not viable or a patient and doctor decide for medical reasons that its the best choice. IMO 2+3 trimester and post birth abortion is murder. I am opposed to them slipping in the abortion pill into the healthcare law. I believe no one is stopping any women from being able to get either contraception or an abortion, its just who will pay for it. I see nothing wrong with a private insurer offering those services just not at the taxpayer cost. That’s my only real issue with HCR. I also think if they took that out many more people would be in favor as well.
    Ebdoug- I think your right. Maybe Oreilly should start his own network like Oprah

    Tuesday, October 16, 2012 at 6:05 pm | Permalink
  12. TJ wrote:

    PtSgt: “That’s my only real issue with HCR” – bulls***. You’ve gone on and on and on with reasons why you don’t like HCR. Most of them financial. Now it’s just because it pays for contraception (which it does – and for good reason) and abortion (which it does NOT do) – Are you rebooting?

    Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 7:29 am | Permalink
  13. PATRIOTSGT wrote:

    TJ – I researched and you are correct on abortion not being in the HCR. I have been re-thinking te HCR legislation and my opinion is evolving. I am not convinced that when fully implemented it won’t break the bank. With the SCOTUS ruling it is now the law in this land. I do support the democratic process and began thinking that alot of people a whole lot smarter then me have looked at this and found it worthy. I am not an inmovable object, I just move slowly.

    By the way, I thnk Obama did a good job in the debate last night. Want I’d like to see from him is his plan to reduce deficits, pay back SS and make it sustainable and reduce our debt. At least Romney was talking about it, but I don’t think his plan will work unless we have an explosion of growth which doesn’t seem to be a reasonable expectation in the next couple of years. Don’t count me out completely, but I’m just not all the way on board yet.

    Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 11:48 am | Permalink
  14. Arthanyel wrote:

    Psgt: HCR (which should be more properly termed health insurance adjustments) will not “break the bank” – in fact, it is likely there are no real added costs to the taxpayers. The only financial “issue” with the Act was that the future savings by fixing bad reimbursement policy (the 716B we keep hearing Romney lie about being taken from beneficiaries) is being used to pay for expanded health care insurance (the 30M or so that will now be covered) rather than being used to reduce the deficit or to delay the problem of growing health care costs in Medicare and Medicaid.

    An argument can (and has) been made that uninsured people are already a huge burden on taxpayers, because the costs of treating those 30M in the emergency room is passed on in every other transaction to insurance companies and the government. That is true although slightly misleading – it is true that we pay for the uninsured now, and will not under Obamacare, however it has also been shown that people with health coverage seek more medical attention so it will not actually be reduction. Total costs will indeed increase – just not enough to use up the whole $71.6B per year in savings. So the NET cost is a wash, or about slightly less (a savings of about 11.4B per year).

    And the GOP red herring about Obamacare stifling business is just that – a red herring. Most employed people are already covered under some form of insurance by their employer (and therefore companies and employees are unaffected), or are in small enough companies the company mandate doesn’t apply (49 employees or less). The big losers are giant employers that do not choose to provide any health coverage at all, like WalMart. NOTE this does NOT impact franchise businesses unless the franchise is big enough, so Subway is exempt. And many of the remaining examples wrote themselves into the exceptions and so are not impacted either. Given the profits of most of those companies, and their business model, an increase in health care costs combined with a reduction in corporate tax rates (which both Romney and Obama plan to do) will leave virtually all of them in good shape.

    That’s the numbers. The human side is that people with medical coverage live longer, less painful, and much happier lives – almost an order of magnitude better. So if we can get 30M people including a lot of young adults and children covered, and the cost is a ash or a small savings, it is something which we morally SHOULD do.

    The summary is that we are better off with Obamacare than without it, but it did not go near far enough to really reform health care. And getting rid of it will make things worse not better. Passing ADDITIONAL reforms is the better answer.

    Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 4:09 pm | Permalink
  15. PATRIOTSGT wrote:

    Thanks Arthanyel – I do believe that everyone having health care insurance is a good thing. I don’t know the estimate of how many of the 30m uninsured the taxpayers will have to support, but I also have heard there are more then a few revenue raising pieces embedded in the law. There is one my home loan guy told me about with closing costs on homeloans that they are waiting on the final plan an word from the IRS concering a new 3-4% medicare tax to be added to the transfer taxes. We’ll have to wait on the final implementation for that one. I also know people who have insurance and still don’t go to the doctor for preventive care so we’ll also have to do some education and or penalties to make people take care of themselves better to keep cost down for the whole. I have always thought the HCR establishment of disallowing dropping sick patients or those with pre-existing conditions was a great thing, although some states already had similar laws it fixes those that didn’t.

    Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 6:15 pm | Permalink