Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Canada Free Press)   "It is not hyperbole to say Barack Obama is the worst President in the history of the nation"   (canadafreepress.com) divider line 215
    More: Amusing, obama, presidents, culture of corruption, LCC, oil wells, source of energy, Constitutional Conventions, Nancy Pelosi  
•       •       •

2504 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 May 2013 at 9:32 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



215 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-05-20 03:03:14 AM  
Dear subby, and I mean this most sincerely,
i487.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-20 03:07:07 AM  

TommyymmoT: Dear subby, and I mean this most sincerely,
[i487.photobucket.com image 850x478]


I'm not subby, so I won't be offing myself because of your post, but I do have to ask: why do you care so much? Why would you give a shiat what someone thinks about someone you voted for? O doesn't know you and wouldn't give you the time of day if you met him on the street.
 
2013-05-20 03:13:43 AM  

Spad31: TommyymmoT: Dear subby, and I mean this most sincerely,
[i487.photobucket.com image 850x478]

I'm not subby, so I won't be offing myself because of your post, but I do have to ask: why do you care so much? Why would you give a shiat what someone thinks about someone you voted for? O doesn't know you and wouldn't give you the time of day if you met him on the street.


If it hadn't been for the pre-existing conditions does not deny you insurance coverage clause in "Obamacare",
I wouldn't be alive right now.
 
2013-05-20 03:14:01 AM  
Sorry, subs, but I seriously doubt anyone could take that title from Carter.
 
2013-05-20 03:17:18 AM  

TommyymmoT: Spad31: TommyymmoT: Dear subby, and I mean this most sincerely,
[i487.photobucket.com image 850x478]

I'm not subby, so I won't be offing myself because of your post, but I do have to ask: why do you care so much? Why would you give a shiat what someone thinks about someone you voted for? O doesn't know you and wouldn't give you the time of day if you met him on the street.

If it hadn't been for the pre-existing conditions does not deny you insurance coverage clause in "Obamacare",
I wouldn't be alive right now.


Uuuum....okay. That did little to answer the question posed. You DO know the US President doesn't make law, right? Drink less.  On a side note, what would you be dead from?
 
2013-05-20 03:37:47 AM  

Spad31: TommyymmoT: Spad31: TommyymmoT: Dear subby, and I mean this most sincerely,
[i487.photobucket.com image 850x478]

I'm not subby, so I won't be offing myself because of your post, but I do have to ask: why do you care so much? Why would you give a shiat what someone thinks about someone you voted for? O doesn't know you and wouldn't give you the time of day if you met him on the street.

If it hadn't been for the pre-existing conditions does not deny you insurance coverage clause in "Obamacare",
I wouldn't be alive right now.

Uuuum....okay. That did little to answer the question posed. You DO know the US President doesn't make law, right? Drink less.  On a side note, what would you be dead from?


Cancer.
 
2013-05-20 03:43:50 AM  

cman: Sorry, subs, but I seriously doubt anyone could take that title from Carter.


And, on second thought, IMO, one cannot be called the greatest or worst President when they are sitting. Things always change. It is history who should be the judge of that.
 
2013-05-20 03:57:26 AM  
There is no "worst President."  There is also no "hottest woman/man."

That said, would you like to debate Presidents you do not like or women/men you find hot?
 
2013-05-20 04:18:20 AM  

cman: Sorry, subs, but I seriously doubt anyone could take that title from Carter.

Nixon.
 
2013-05-20 05:36:53 AM  
It's not hyperbole, it's mental illness.
 
2013-05-20 07:21:43 AM  
It's CFP. They make WND appear to be sane
 
2013-05-20 07:34:47 AM  

cman: Sorry, subs, but I seriously doubt anyone could take that title from Carter.


Buchanan, Tyler, Hoover, Fillmore, Nixon.

We had some major asshats as presidents between Jackson and Lincoln.
 
2013-05-20 08:24:00 AM  
Andrew Johnson
Buchanan
Grant
Harding
Pierce

These are the worst in history. Period.
 
2013-05-20 08:39:41 AM  
The very first example of the changes that would mark his administration was the announcement of Obama's "czars"

Oh jesus christ. How fresh.
 
2013-05-20 08:45:07 AM  

cman: Sorry, subs, but I seriously doubt anyone could take that title from Carter.


How many countries did Carter invade under false pretenses? I missed have cut my history class that day.
 
2013-05-20 08:49:21 AM  

Mugato: cman: Sorry, subs, but I seriously doubt anyone could take that title from Carter.

How many countries did Carter invade under false pretenses? I missed have cut my history class that day.


must have, that is
 
2013-05-20 08:52:20 AM  

Mugato: Mugato: cman: Sorry, subs, but I seriously doubt anyone could take that title from Carter.

How many countries did Carter invade under false pretenses? I missed have cut my history class that day.

must have, that is


Since when does lying make one a terrible President?
 
2013-05-20 08:53:39 AM  

TommyymmoT: Spad31: TommyymmoT: Dear subby, and I mean this most sincerely,
[i487.photobucket.com image 850x478]

I'm not subby, so I won't be offing myself because of your post, but I do have to ask: why do you care so much? Why would you give a shiat what someone thinks about someone you voted for? O doesn't know you and wouldn't give you the time of day if you met him on the street.

If it hadn't been for the pre-existing conditions does not deny you insurance coverage clause in "Obamacare",
I wouldn't be alive right now.


That clause doesn't take effect until 2014...
 
2013-05-20 08:57:37 AM  

cman: Since when does lying make one a terrible President?


Dude, go away.

a confluence of scandals involving Benghazi-Gate, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Department of Justice. Let's not forget "Fast and Furious."

He forgot Umbrellagate. I mean as long as you're calling every faux-outrage vomited out by a republican a "scandal", you might as well include them all.
 
2013-05-20 08:57:38 AM  

cman: Sorry, subs, but I seriously doubt anyone could take that title from Carter.


worse than bush II? worse than harding? ROFL!
 
2013-05-20 09:04:09 AM  

Mugato: cman: Since when does lying make one a terrible President?

Dude, go away.


There are many ways to rank Presidents. You based your rankings on someone who lied to get a war. It is not exactly the most used method for ranking Presidents.

FlashHarry: cman:

worse than bush II? worse than harding? ROFL!


joke |jōk| noun a thing that someone says to cause amusement or laughter, esp. a story with a funny punchline: she was in a mood to tell jokes.

Is Carter the worst President ever? I dunno. I see that a lot in contemporary comedic usage so thats what I spit out.
 
2013-05-20 09:28:31 AM  

Mugato: How many countries did Carter invade under false pretenses?


You don't have to invade to make a mess.

In Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, Carter the master of African diplomacy helped force out the nasty bigot Ian Smith but then threw in behind the vastly worse Robert Mugabe knowing full well what he was about, and helped ruin that country as surely as if we had carpet-bombed it.

Under Carter, wise and gentle leader that he was, we happily continued the Nixon-Ford-Kissinger policy of selling arms to the genocidal Suharto dictatorship in Indonesia as they wiped out a couple hundred thousand people in East Timor.

Carter, saintly protector of human rights, couldn't be bothered to say 'boo' about the genocide in Cambodia until 1978, mainly because we were tacitly backing Pol Pot, in part via the Chinese...a policy started under Ford and continued by Reagan.

South Korea. Carter, a noble soul who wouldn't hurt a fly, gave his assent to the Kwangju massacre. 2000 pro-democracy protestors dead.

B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but he was different from Reagan, Nixon and Bush?
 
2013-05-20 09:34:30 AM  

Gulper Eel: B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but he was different from Reagan, Nixon and Bush?


We'll have to agree to disagree if you think all of that is worse than a campaign that cost  4 trillion dollars and around a half million deaths. Plus the laundry list of other shiat Bush did that everyone already knows.
 
2013-05-20 09:34:50 AM  
Why do I give a shiat what Canada thinks?
 
2013-05-20 09:35:53 AM  
Someone apparently was in a coma from 2000 to 2008
 
2013-05-20 09:38:35 AM  
It is not hyperbole to say that this article was a super-sized value meal of fail.

It is absolutely, LITERALLY, hyperbole to say that Barak Obama is the worst president in the history of the nation.

Also, using this schmuck's logic, Lincoln was worse.
 
2013-05-20 09:39:35 AM  

cman: Mugato: Mugato: cman: Sorry, subs, but I seriously doubt anyone could take that title from Carter.

How many countries did Carter invade under false pretenses? I missed have cut my history class that day.

must have, that is

Since when does lying make one a terrible President?


When 4000+ people die and our foreign policy is damaged highly.

Also, most polls put Obama in the top 20, Bush in the bottom 10-15.
 
2013-05-20 09:40:29 AM  

cman: Sorry, subs, but I seriously doubt anyone could take that title from Carter.


Main thing Carter did wrong: tried to control inflation during a recession.  He'd be a conservative hero today.
 
2013-05-20 09:40:36 AM  
Can this finally be the impetus for Obama to flex his nuts and invade a country for no f*cking reason like the last one?
 
2013-05-20 09:40:59 AM  

cman: Mugato: Mugato: cman: Sorry, subs, but I seriously doubt anyone could take that title from Carter.

How many countries did Carter invade under false pretenses? I missed have cut my history class that day.

must have, that is

Since when does lying make one a terrible President?


When those lies result in the deaths of thousands of Americans, the maiming of tens of thousands more Americans, a few hundred thousand civilian deaths, the devastation of America's reputation worldwide and the squandering of trillions of dollars that could have been spent improving the lives of people in America it tends to eat into your scorecard a bit.
 
2013-05-20 09:41:32 AM  
Nixon, you dolt!

Also that asshole, Reagan.
 
2013-05-20 09:41:49 AM  
To be honest, Obama is simply the worst president since Bush.

Who was the worst president since Reagan.

Who ran neck-and-neck with Hoover.
 
2013-05-20 09:43:01 AM  
Let's see here. Bush almost single-handedly destroyed the world economy, wasted trillions of dollars and killed thousands of people in Iraq, and tacitly gave his approval for war crimes like torture. But because we have Benghazi instead of Ghraibgate, Bush is better. Got it.
 
2013-05-20 09:43:24 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: Someone apparently was in a coma from 2000 to 2008


No, he was there. He declares the Bush administration "hardly corrupt" and then moves on to Shadowy Czars.

If you're the sort who is curious about why the published opinions of stupid people make some of us mad, it's because we don't like that stupid people are getting their opinions published. Stupid people need to keep their mouths shut. Yes, this includes you, guy who is about to hit the reply button and say something stupid like "case in point." I can smell that crappy little adrenaline spike you're getting, and it smells gross.
 
2013-05-20 09:44:01 AM  

cman: Sorry, subs, but I seriously doubt anyone could take that title from Carter.


Historians disagree with you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the _ United_States

Carter: 27
Obama: 14
Bush: 34

Maximum sodomy for your ass.
 
2013-05-20 09:44:09 AM  

Mugato: Gulper Eel: B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but he was different from Reagan, Nixon and Bush?

We'll have to agree to disagree if you think all of that is worse than a campaign that cost  4 trillion dollars and around a half million deaths. Plus the laundry list of other shiat Bush did that everyone already knows.


I hear a lot about how Vietnam was one of those kind of wars. JFK put the first troops there and LBJ significantly increased them to obscene levels; yet it is Nixon who always gets the shaft for it. Obama didnt end the Iraq war as soon as he entered the White House. In fact, Obama wanted to keep troops there, but the Iraqi refusal to grant soldier immunity convinced him to bring them home.

LBJ and JFK get a free pass and Nixon takes it up the ass. Isnt that kinda farked up?

All I am saying is that if you are gonna throw out the "but-but-but-BUSH!" arguments then stop treating those on your side as flawless. JFK started a war that killed over 2 million Vietnamese and yet you guys love him.
 
2013-05-20 09:44:32 AM  

Serious Black: Let's see here. Bush almost single-handedly destroyed the world economy, wasted trillions of dollars and killed thousands of people in Iraq, and tacitly gave his approval for war crimes like torture. But because we have Benghazi instead of Ghraibgate, Bush is better. Got it.


You forgot the umbrella!
 
2013-05-20 09:45:33 AM  
Do americans not know their history? As a someone who isn't american (but has an academic interest in american history), I know much bullshiat that is.
 
2013-05-20 09:46:22 AM  

cman: Mugato: Gulper Eel: B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but he was different from Reagan, Nixon and Bush?

We'll have to agree to disagree if you think all of that is worse than a campaign that cost  4 trillion dollars and around a half million deaths. Plus the laundry list of other shiat Bush did that everyone already knows.

I hear a lot about how Vietnam was one of those kind of wars. JFK put the first troops there and LBJ significantly increased them to obscene levels; yet it is Nixon who always gets the shaft for it. Obama didnt end the Iraq war as soon as he entered the White House. In fact, Obama wanted to keep troops there, but the Iraqi refusal to grant soldier immunity convinced him to bring them home.

LBJ and JFK get a free pass and Nixon takes it up the ass. Isnt that kinda farked up?

All I am saying is that if you are gonna throw out the "but-but-but-BUSH!" arguments then stop treating those on your side as flawless. JFK started a war that killed over 2 million Vietnamese and yet you guys love him.


Say........where were those WMDs that 5000+ American armed forces people got killed for?

That's right, motherfarker, say what you will about Obama, but at least he didn't invade a country based on a pack of farking lies he told.
 
2013-05-20 09:46:44 AM  
Please ignore this guy Alan Caruba. I have gotten into lengthy arguments with him on Tea Party Nation. (I troll for fun. The paranoia and hatred is epic. You guys should come join) He rants with no coherent points and just generally turns the DERP all the way up to potato. Also, he should read about Franklin Pierce, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Warren G Harding, Herbert Hoover, John Tyler, and  Zachary Taylor.

 
2013-05-20 09:47:09 AM  
Fark you, Canada. When we want your opinion we'll...no, we will never want it.
 
2013-05-20 09:47:21 AM  

Mugato: Serious Black: Let's see here. Bush almost single-handedly destroyed the world economy, wasted trillions of dollars and killed thousands of people in Iraq, and tacitly gave his approval for war crimes like torture. But because we have Benghazi instead of Ghraibgate, Bush is better. Got it.

You forgot the umbrella!


politix.topix.com

But that Obamanable asshole used the God-loving God-fearing salt-of-the-earth Marines instead of those Army pukes!

What a Fartbeefer.
 
2013-05-20 09:48:02 AM  
I dunno, I keep hearing that Obama is the worst carbon-based lifeform in the entire history of the known universe.....
 
2013-05-20 09:48:10 AM  

Serious Black: Let's see here. Bush almost single-handedly destroyed the world economy, wasted trillions of dollars and killed thousands of people in Iraq, and tacitly gave his approval for war crimes like torture. But because we have Benghazi instead of Ghraibgate, Bush is better. Got it.


And many of the prominent Liberal presidents of the 20th century supported dictators and even overthrew democratic governments because they *could* have liked Moscow. These dictators had wars, supported torture, committed genocide. Liberals are not as holy as they think they are.
 
2013-05-20 09:49:29 AM  

Gulper Eel: Mugato: How many countries did Carter invade under false pretenses?

You don't have to invade to make a mess.

In Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, Carter the master of African diplomacy helped force out the nasty bigot Ian Smith but then threw in behind the vastly worse Robert Mugabe knowing full well what he was about, and helped ruin that country as surely as if we had carpet-bombed it.

Under Carter, wise and gentle leader that he was, we happily continued the Nixon-Ford-Kissinger policy of selling arms to the genocidal Suharto dictatorship in Indonesia as they wiped out a couple hundred thousand people in East Timor.

Carter, saintly protector of human rights, couldn't be bothered to say 'boo' about the genocide in Cambodia until 1978, mainly because we were tacitly backing Pol Pot, in part via the Chinese...a policy started under Ford and continued by Reagan.

South Korea. Carter, a noble soul who wouldn't hurt a fly, gave his assent to the Kwangju massacre. 2000 pro-democracy protestors dead.

B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but he was different from Reagan, Nixon and Bush?


So you are saying that Bush, Nixon and Reagan were terrible Presidents too?
 
2013-05-20 09:49:47 AM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: I can smell that crappy little adrenaline spike you're getting, and it smells gross.


Smells like ass and catfood
 
2013-05-20 09:50:09 AM  
At least we know he's not the worst writer in the history of the nation.
 
2013-05-20 09:50:25 AM  
Bush and his crew, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc. are all farking war criminals.
 
2013-05-20 09:50:42 AM  

cman: All I am saying is that if you are gonna throw out the "but-but-but-BUSH!" arguments then stop treating those on your side as flawless. JFK started a war that killed over 2 million Vietnamese and yet you guys love him.


I have no love for Kennedy and you're right, he started or at least escalated the VietNam war. And Nixon sabotaged peace talks in order to win the Presidency and invaded Cambodia so everyone involved in that time period sucked.
 
2013-05-20 09:50:43 AM  
he very first example of the changes that would mark his administration was the announcement of Obama's "czars"

LOL at people in this thread thinking the person who wrote this sentence should not seriously consider suicide
 
2013-05-20 09:50:44 AM  

Jake Havechek: cman: Mugato: Gulper Eel: B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but he was different from Reagan, Nixon and Bush?

We'll have to agree to disagree if you think all of that is worse than a campaign that cost  4 trillion dollars and around a half million deaths. Plus the laundry list of other shiat Bush did that everyone already knows.

I hear a lot about how Vietnam was one of those kind of wars. JFK put the first troops there and LBJ significantly increased them to obscene levels; yet it is Nixon who always gets the shaft for it. Obama didnt end the Iraq war as soon as he entered the White House. In fact, Obama wanted to keep troops there, but the Iraqi refusal to grant soldier immunity convinced him to bring them home.

LBJ and JFK get a free pass and Nixon takes it up the ass. Isnt that kinda farked up?

All I am saying is that if you are gonna throw out the "but-but-but-BUSH!" arguments then stop treating those on your side as flawless. JFK started a war that killed over 2 million Vietnamese and yet you guys love him.

Say........where were those WMDs that 5000+ American armed forces people got killed for?

That's right, motherfarker, say what you will about Obama, but at least he didn't invade a country based on a pack of farking lies he told.


Yeah, its not like the Vietnam war started on a lie

Lying to get a war happens. Just please be more unbiased in your biatching.
 
2013-05-20 09:51:05 AM  
Aggregate results, polls of historical rankings of US presidents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the _ United_States

1. Abraham Lincoln
2. Franklin D. Roosevelt
3. George Washington
4. Thomas Jefferson
5. Theodore Roosevelt
6. Woodrow Wilson
7. Harry S. Truman
8. Dwight D. Eisenhower
9. Andrew Jackson
10. James K. Polk
11. John F. Kennedy
12. John Adams
13. James Madison
14. James Monroe
15. Lyndon B. Johnson
16. Barack Obama
17. Ronald Reagan
18. John Quincy Adams
19. Grover Cleveland
20. William McKinley
21. Bill Clinton
22. William Howard Taft
23. George H.W. Bush
24. Martin Van Buren
25. Rutherford B. Hayes
26. Gerald Ford
27. Jimmy Carter
28. Chester A. Arthur
29. Herbert Hoover
30. James A. Garfield
31. Calvin Coolidge
32. Richard Nixon
33. Benjamin Harrison
34. George W. Bush
35. Zachary Taylor
36. John Tyler
37. Ulysses S. Grant
38. Millard Fillmore
39. William Henry Harrison
40. Franklin Pierce
41. Andrew Johnson
42. James Buchanan
43. Warren G. Harding
 
2013-05-20 09:52:01 AM  

Mugato: We'll have to agree to disagree if you think all of that is worse than a campaign that cost 4 trillion dollars and around a half million deaths.


Whatever W's many failings are, televangelizing his way around the world as a self-styled diplomacymonger is not one of them.

How badly did we fark the people of Zimbabwe, East Timor and Cambodia, to name just three? There were 200,000 murdered in East Timor in the late 70's with weapons we sold to Suharto in '77, hundreds of thousands more wiped out in Cambodia...and Zimbabwe? Life expectancy crashed to somewhere in the 30's.

Half of Iraq's, in other words.

That's what Carter (and that twit Callaghan in England) did to Zimbabwe. They took the toys away from the mean redneck and gave them to a serial killer.

There's always going to be inhumanity in the world, and the US has jumped in on the side of the killers more often than we'd like to admit...but isn't the line on Carter that he was supposed to have been different from all the others?
 
2013-05-20 09:52:09 AM  
This incompetent empty-suit is unstoppable with his diabolical games and schemes.
 
2013-05-20 09:53:06 AM  
Dear Lord so much bs in that article...
 
2013-05-20 09:53:28 AM  
Arugula + no flag pins + using a proxy for umbrella holding + universal healthcare based on GOP plan + edamame on 12/7 + yuengling + only person in universe to ever use teleprompter + rolling a 37 in bowling + no sportjacket in oval office + binder clips + war on xmas + doggy dining + liking basketball + elitist education + using marijuana + being able to sing + soshulizms + Saul Alinsky + you didn't build that taken out of context + community organizing + acts of terror instead of terrorist acts + 20 billion dollar fine for BP + only raising gasoline prices when they go up but never decreasing gasoline prices when they go down in price + forging the unemployment numbers + advocating for renewable energy = worst president in the history of the known multiverse past present and future and sideways.
 
2013-05-20 09:54:15 AM  
Dafuq did I just read?

I was looking for a disclaimer somewhere to tell me that is an Onion type site.  I didn't find one.

That dude needs some serious medication.  Serious.Medication.
 
2013-05-20 09:55:17 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: So you are saying that Bush, Nixon and Reagan were terrible Presidents too?


Yes.

The best president of my lifetime is Clinton - at least when he dithered over Rwanda and the inaction got 800,000 people killed, he at least had the decency to admit how badly he farked up.
 
2013-05-20 09:55:24 AM  

cman: Serious Black: Let's see here. Bush almost single-handedly destroyed the world economy, wasted trillions of dollars and killed thousands of people in Iraq, and tacitly gave his approval for war crimes like torture. But because we have Benghazi instead of Ghraibgate, Bush is better. Got it.

And many of the prominent Liberal presidents of the 20th century supported dictators and even overthrew democratic governments because they *could* have liked Moscow. These dictators had wars, supported torture, committed genocide. Liberals are not as holy as they think they are.


Yes, I'm very aware of what America's foreign policy is like today. I have recommended people read Washington Rules by Andrew Bacevich as I think it neatly lays out the idea that we have become a warmongering society over time with increasingly fewer rules on what is out of bounds, including the preemptive war doctrine that led us into Iraq.
 
2013-05-20 09:55:32 AM  

cman: LBJ and JFK get a free pass and Nixon takes it up the ass. Isnt that kinda farked up?


This could be one reason:

http://www.ibtimes.com/lbj-tapes-show-richard-nixon-may-have-committ ed -treason-sabotaging-vietnam-peace-talks-1131819
 
2013-05-20 09:55:51 AM  

crazydave023: Please ignore this guy Alan Caruba. I have gotten into lengthy arguments with him on Tea Party Nation. (I troll for fun. The paranoia and hatred is epic. You guys should come join) He rants with no coherent points and just generally turns the DERP all the way up to potato. Also, he should read about Franklin Pierce, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Warren G Harding, Herbert Hoover, John Tyler, and  Zachary Taylor.


Check out his list of articles and how quickly he churns them out.  This guy is a fine-tuned, super-prolific derp machine!
 
2013-05-20 09:56:17 AM  
 Correct, it is not hyperbole, it's a flat out bald face lie. But that has yet to even slow down the haters. But carry on because so far the howling insanity on the right has done a lot to scare people out of voting republican. Still don't much fancy the idea of one party rule even if  that party happens to be the least corrupt and insane at the time.
 
2013-05-20 09:56:20 AM  
To save anyone from having to click on that POS article.

The first paragraph FTFA-

"All through George W. Bush's two terms, the Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi and others claimed that they represented "a culture of corruption" and yet I cannot recall any significant examples, nor does a look back at those years reveal any scandals resulting from his administration's governance. It was not perfect, but it was not corrupt."

It gets worse from there...
 
2013-05-20 09:56:23 AM  

Gulper Eel: Mugato: We'll have to agree to disagree if you think all of that is worse than a campaign that cost 4 trillion dollars and around a half million deaths.

Whatever W's many failings are, televangelizing his way around the world as a self-styled diplomacymonger is not one of them.

How badly did we fark the people of Zimbabwe, East Timor and Cambodia, to name just three? There were 200,000 murdered in East Timor in the late 70's with weapons we sold to Suharto in '77, hundreds of thousands more wiped out in Cambodia...and Zimbabwe? Life expectancy crashed to somewhere in the 30's.

Half of Iraq's, in other words.

That's what Carter (and that twit Callaghan in England) did to Zimbabwe. They took the toys away from the mean redneck and gave them to a serial killer.

There's always going to be inhumanity in the world, and the US has jumped in on the side of the killers more often than we'd like to admit...but isn't the line on Carter that he was supposed to have been different from all the others?


Yes, he was better than at least 16 of them since he's ranked 27th by presidential historians.

//Bush is better than a measley 9
 
2013-05-20 09:56:39 AM  
I read this first paragraph:

All through George W. Bush's two terms, the Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi and others claimed that they represented "a culture of corruption" and yet I cannot recall any significant examples, nor does a look back at those years reveal any scandals resulting from his administration's governance. It was not perfect, but it was not corrupt.

and realized that reading any further would just make my brain hurt.   The stuff going on in the Obama administration that the GOP is biatching about right now is 100% small potatoes compared to the shiat the Bushies were pulling.  Hell, if the Obama administration did anything close to what Rove, Cheney and company were orchestrating from the white house, congressional republicans would have already attempted to bring impeachment proceedings.

I mean, there are scandals going on, but the shiat that is making the news right now is nothing compared to the fundamental, systemic problems that neither party wants to talk about.
 
2013-05-20 09:57:26 AM  
All through George W. Bush's two terms, the Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi and others claimed that they represented "a culture of corruption" and yet I cannot recall any significant examples, nor does a look back at those years reveal any scandals resulting from his administration's governance. It was not perfect, but it was not corrupt.

LOL, wut?

We haven't had so much cronyism in the White House since Warren Harding's administration -- and Bush only dodged his own scandals because he was able to use the aftershock of 9/11 to send his cronies elsewhere. Bush even used our military to settle a family grudge in Iraq and then allowed his well-connected friends to become war profiteers who bilked the US and Iranian governments out of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of reconstruction funds. In the meantime, over a thousand US troops died and thousands more were wounded in the line of duty, all for two wars that didn't need to happen and which enriched Bush's inner circle. If that's not corruption, what is?

What's sad about all of Obama's "scandals" is that they've been due to government incompetence rather than Obama himself being some Nixonian mastermind. Obama is not a great president. He is continuing bad policies put into place during the Bush era and has shown that he is not nearly as strong a leader as he is an orator. But compared to the previous president, there's no way in hell you could ever call him the worst in history.

/Didn't vote for Obama OR Romney in the last election.
 
2013-05-20 09:57:56 AM  

Gulper Eel: Philip Francis Queeg: So you are saying that Bush, Nixon and Reagan were terrible Presidents too?

Yes.

The best president of my lifetime is Clinton - at least when he dithered over Rwanda and the inaction got 800,000 people killed, he at least had the decency to admit how badly he farked up.


So what makes Carter the worst? Just your opinion that he was somehow supposed to be "different"?  That he didn't support repressive regimes that you preferred?
 
2013-05-20 09:59:39 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Gulper Eel: Philip Francis Queeg: So you are saying that Bush, Nixon and Reagan were terrible Presidents too?

Yes.

The best president of my lifetime is Clinton - at least when he dithered over Rwanda and the inaction got 800,000 people killed, he at least had the decency to admit how badly he farked up.

So what makes Carter the worst? Just your opinion that he was somehow supposed to be "different"?  That he didn't support repressive regimes that you preferred?


The wonderfully, meticulously formed echo chamber from FoxNews that the 1-2 punch of terribleness in our lifetime is Carter and Obama.
 
2013-05-20 10:00:21 AM  

coeyagi: Mugato: Serious Black: Let's see here. Bush almost single-handedly destroyed the world economy, wasted trillions of dollars and killed thousands of people in Iraq, and tacitly gave his approval for war crimes like torture. But because we have Benghazi instead of Ghraibgate, Bush is better. Got it.

You forgot the umbrella!

[politix.topix.com image 514x385]

But that Obamanable asshole used the God-loving God-fearing salt-of-the-earth Marines instead of those Army pukes!

What a Fartbeefer.


But, you see how Obama made his Marine extend his arm a little farther over his black head? I think it was done intentionally and its an impeachable offense.
 
2013-05-20 10:01:54 AM  

GiantRex: Aggregate results, polls of historical rankings of US presidents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the _ United_States

1. Abraham Lincoln
2. Franklin D. Roosevelt
3. George Washington
4. Thomas Jefferson
5. Theodore Roosevelt
6. Woodrow Wilson
7. Harry S. Truman
8. Dwight D. Eisenhower
9. Andrew Jackson
10. James K. Polk
11. John F. Kennedy
12. John Adams
13. James Madison
14. James Monroe
15. Lyndon B. Johnson
16. Barack Obama
17. Ronald Reagan
18. John Quincy Adams
19. Grover Cleveland
20. William McKinley
21. Bill Clinton
22. William Howard Taft
23. George H.W. Bush
24. Martin Van Buren
25. Rutherford B. Hayes
26. Gerald Ford
27. Jimmy Carter
28. Chester A. Arthur
29. Herbert Hoover
30. James A. Garfield
31. Calvin Coolidge
32. Richard Nixon
33. Benjamin Harrison
34. George W. Bush
35. Zachary Taylor
36. John Tyler
37. Ulysses S. Grant
38. Millard Fillmore
39. William Henry Harrison
40. Franklin Pierce
41. Andrew Johnson
42. James Buchanan
43. Warren G. Harding


Pfft.  Who cares what "experts" think.  All the critics said that Transformers II was no good, but I just want to see hot chicks and explosions in my movies and Presidents so I think it's pretty obvious that George W. Bush was the best president.  Did you see Gulf War II?  The critics said it was lame too, but that's only because the first Gulf War was so awesome.  It was way better than Clinton's lame-o Kosovo War which had NO hot chicks.

If I was President then my presidency would look like this:
fbtrouble.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com
 
2013-05-20 10:02:41 AM  
The "Canada Free Press," despite its friendly, Detroit-Freep-not-Free-Republic-Freep-sounding name, is a Toronto-based WND ripoff. Two of its editors:

Arthur Weinreb - Associate Editor Arthur Weinreb is an author, columnist and Associate Editor of Canada Free Press. His work has appeared on Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, Glenn Beck.

Klaus Rohrich - Senior Writer Klaus Rohrich has a regular column on retirementhomes.com and is currently working on his first book dealing with the toxicity of liberalism. His work has been featured on the Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and Lucianne, among others.


And the Editor-in-Chief, Judi McLeod? I'll quote Wikipedia:

In 2005, McLeod and David Hawkins wrote a series of articles on what they described as the' "radical agenda executed across and, operated by the self-styled 'Global Custodians'." They alleged links between "$40 trillion, via an online portal on the seventy-ninth floor of, to '' developed by Canada for alleged use in the UN scam, and fraud.

Conservative writer has described McLeod's writing as that of an "emotionally incontinent ninth grader," while columnist describes her as "eccentric" and the  Canada Free Press as a "whacko news site."
 
2013-05-20 10:02:57 AM  

cman: Mugato: Gulper Eel: B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but he was different from Reagan, Nixon and Bush?

We'll have to agree to disagree if you think all of that is worse than a campaign that cost  4 trillion dollars and around a half million deaths. Plus the laundry list of other shiat Bush did that everyone already knows.

I hear a lot about how Vietnam was one of those kind of wars. JFK put the first troops there and LBJ significantly increased them to obscene levels; yet it is Nixon who always gets the shaft for it. Obama didnt end the Iraq war as soon as he entered the White House. In fact, Obama wanted to keep troops there, but the Iraqi refusal to grant soldier immunity convinced him to bring them home.

LBJ and JFK get a free pass and Nixon takes it up the ass. Isnt that kinda farked up?

All I am saying is that if you are gonna throw out the "but-but-but-BUSH!" arguments then stop treating those on your side as flawless. JFK started a war that killed over 2 million Vietnamese and yet you guys love him.


There was going to be a peace accord in Paris between the N Vietnamese and the US in 1968 just before the elections. Nixon got someone to tell the S Vietnamese not to accept the terms and the NVs pulled out and thus the Vietnam war continued for another 4+ years. LBJ having heard what Nixon did, considered busting Nixon for treason. So if there is anyone worth pinning the war on, it would have to be Tricky Dick.

Between that, the Southern Strategy and Watergate, we see the dark side of the GOP: they're willing to do anything to win an election; except propose sane and popular policies.
 
2013-05-20 10:03:09 AM  

cman: Yeah, its not like the Vietnam war started on a lie

Lying to get a war happens. Just please be more unbiased in your biatching.


The Vietnam war started more than a decade before the US got involved in it.
 
2013-05-20 10:04:47 AM  
Obama is the worst president.

Until we elect the next one.
Then I vote for that guy!
 
2013-05-20 10:05:35 AM  
Put it this way. What if Obama was elected in 2000. What if 9/11 happened under Obama and two bullshiat wars as a result. Would he have a 90+% approval rating like Bush (briefly) did? What if Bush was elected in 2008 and four people were killed in an embassy half a world away and he didn't hold his own umbrella. Would the Democrats be calling for his impeachment? That's the difference between the two "teams".
 
2013-05-20 10:09:40 AM  

GiantRex: Aggregate results, polls of historical rankings of US presidents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the _ United_States

16. Barack Obama
17. Ronald Reagan


25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-05-20 10:12:36 AM  
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-05-20 10:14:00 AM  
I am always shocked by people's lack of memory.
 
2013-05-20 10:14:29 AM  

cman: Mugato: Mugato: cman: Sorry, subs, but I seriously doubt anyone could take that title from Carter.

How many countries did Carter invade under false pretenses? I missed have cut my history class that day.

must have, that is

Since when does lying make one a terrible President?


When it results in the deaths of thousands of US troops?
 
2013-05-20 10:14:51 AM  

Parthenogenetic: GiantRex: Aggregate results, polls of historical rankings of US presidents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the _ United_States

16. Barack Obama
17. Ronald Reagan

[25.media.tumblr.com image 467x337]


The Historians Never Got the GOP memo entitled "We Can Haz Mulligan?".

images.dangerousminds.net
 
2013-05-20 10:17:14 AM  

Herr Docktor Heinrich Wisenheimer: cman: Sorry, subs, but I seriously doubt anyone could take that title from Carter. Nixon.


W. has my vote for worst. Coolidge second. Polk third. Carter fourth. Watergate was horrible but I give Nixon credit for opening relations with China and the clean air and clean water acts.
 
2013-05-20 10:18:11 AM  
Yes, yes it is. He's only even competitive with hos immediate predecessor on a political tactical basis. American presidents have signed off on slavery and genocide in the past. Farking horrible=\=worst ever, as horrible as that is.
 
2013-05-20 10:18:46 AM  

GiantRex: Aggregate results, polls of historical rankings of US presidents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the _ United_States


Note, some of those (EG, Jackson and Eisenhower; Monroe, Johnson, and Obama) are actually multi-way ties.

Still, "worse than James Madison" seems a fair damnation for Obama.

/Woodrow Wilson is way overrated
 
2013-05-20 10:19:13 AM  

Parthenogenetic: GiantRex: Aggregate results, polls of historical rankings of US presidents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the _ United_States

16. Barack Obama
17. Ronald Reagan


IKR? Ronald Reagan should be much lower on that list.
 
2013-05-20 10:19:37 AM  
Anyone who uses hyperbole is worse than Hitler.
 
2013-05-20 10:22:12 AM  
/conservative christian repblican

history may show that he was the BEST president ever.

we're dealing with nonlinear systems, here, people. just 'cause things suck balls right now because of obama doesn't mean he isn't laying the groundwork for a better future. i know i know it's a standard socialist liberal line.

just remember to elect a republican next time and we'll be balanced out after 8-10 more years.

patience.
 
2013-05-20 10:25:01 AM  

utah dude: /conservative christian repblican

history may show that he was the BEST president ever.

we're dealing with nonlinear systems, here, people. just 'cause things suck balls right now because of Bush doesn't mean Obama isn't laying the groundwork for a better future. i know i know it's a standard troll line.

just remember to elect a non-republican next time

patience.


That took a lot of editing.  You must have failed Freshman English / History.
 
2013-05-20 10:26:03 AM  
He'd have a lot of catching up to do just to surpass the guy before him on the "worst" list.  People who are trying to call him "the worst" or these recent problems "the biggest scandal" are just revealing to everyone what idiots they are.
 
2013-05-20 10:27:33 AM  

Mugato: Put it this way. What if Obama was elected in 2000. What if 9/11 happened under Obama and two bullshiat wars as a result. Would he have a 90+% approval rating like Bush (briefly) did? What if Bush was elected in 2008 and four people were killed in an embassy half a world away and he didn't hold his own umbrella. Would the Democrats be calling for his impeachment? That's the difference between the two "teams".


1. One cannot compare 9/11 and 9/11/11. The 9/11 attacks happened on our own soil while 9/11/11 attacks happened in a bumfark country that half the Americans cant find on a map. 9/11 was highly traumatic for us as a nation. 9/11/11 was not traumatic at all. One was politically stable and the other was going through a revolution. One involved the death of women and children and the other did not. These two attacks are not comparable at all.

 2. My statement does not destroy your point. Hyperpartisan bullshiat is why 9/11/11 is still brought up. You have a very valid concern. Most people who talk about Benghazi are just repeating what they have heard from others without any independent though process from their friends to them. Smart people believe dumb shiat because they trust people they shouldnt.
 
2013-05-20 10:28:26 AM  
Sorry, the title of worst President in the history of the nation still belongs to Dick Cheney.
 
2013-05-20 10:29:19 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: So what makes Carter the worst? Just your opinion that he was somehow supposed to be "different"? That he didn't support repressive regimes that you preferred?


Carter's not on my worst list at all (upthread I went with Buchanan, Tyler, Hoover, Fillmore, Nixon) - but he is painted as a saint so often, and in supposed contrast to "warmongers", that I have to call bullshiat.

Carter is most definitely on my most-overrated list, along with Wilson, LBJ, Reagan, Jackson and Obama.
 
2013-05-20 10:29:34 AM  
Personally, I think he'd take Pierre Trudeau in a game of one-on-one, but may lose out if it turns out to be ice hockey - don't know if they have a similar one-on-one version of ice hockey.  So, I think Canada is wrong.  There's my proof.
 
2013-05-20 10:30:14 AM  

cman: Mugato: Gulper Eel: B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but he was different from Reagan, Nixon and Bush?

We'll have to agree to disagree if you think all of that is worse than a campaign that cost  4 trillion dollars and around a half million deaths. Plus the laundry list of other shiat Bush did that everyone already knows.

I hear a lot about how Vietnam was one of those kind of wars. JFK put the first troops there and LBJ significantly increased them to obscene levels; yet it is Nixon who always gets the shaft for it. Obama didnt end the Iraq war as soon as he entered the White House. In fact, Obama wanted to keep troops there, but the Iraqi refusal to grant soldier immunity convinced him to bring them home.

LBJ and JFK get a free pass and Nixon takes it up the ass. Isnt that kinda farked up?

All I am saying is that if you are gonna throw out the "but-but-but-BUSH!" arguments then stop treating those on your side as flawless. JFK started a war that killed over 2 million Vietnamese and yet you guys love him.


It's because he campaigned on leaving quickly (without abandoning the South Vietnamese) and then didn't. He even had the gall to send MORE troops. JFK doesn't get flack because although he sent troops he didn't send many and when the shiat hit the fan he was very dead. LBJ didn't campaign on ending the war (unless we won, etc.), so Nixon looked bad because he made a campaign promise and then did the opposite.
 
2013-05-20 10:30:26 AM  

coeyagi: Mugato: Serious Black: Let's see here. Bush almost single-handedly destroyed the world economy, wasted trillions of dollars and killed thousands of people in Iraq, and tacitly gave his approval for war crimes like torture. But because we have Benghazi instead of Ghraibgate, Bush is better. Got it.

You forgot the umbrella!

[politix.topix.com image 514x385]

But that Obamanable asshole used the God-loving God-fearing salt-of-the-earth Marines instead of those Army pukes!

What a Fartbeefer.


And proof that Carter was the worst umbrella president of all time.  He can't get someone to hold an umbrella for him, and has to hold it for foreign dignataries.  He can't get no respect.

www.agribusinesscouncil.org


Umbrella-gate is my favorite gate.
 
2013-05-20 10:35:05 AM  

Mugato: Put it this way. What if Obama was elected in 2000. What if 9/11 happened under Obama and two bullshiat wars as a result. Would he have a 90+% approval rating like Bush (briefly) did? What if Bush was elected in 2008 and four people were killed in an embassy half a world away and he didn't hold his own umbrella. Would the Democrats be calling for his impeachment? That's the difference between the two "teams".


So, what you are saying is that Republicans support half of all murderous authoritarian presidents and Democrats support them all?
 
2013-05-20 10:38:04 AM  

Pilikia: Sorry, the title of worst President in the history of the nation still belongs to Dick Cheney.



I'm stingy with my "smart" click. Congratulations.
 
2013-05-20 10:38:51 AM  

cman: Mugato: Put it this way. What if Obama was elected in 2000. What if 9/11 happened under Obama and two bullshiat wars as a result. Would he have a 90+% approval rating like Bush (briefly) did? What if Bush was elected in 2008 and four people were killed in an embassy half a world away and he didn't hold his own umbrella. Would the Democrats be calling for his impeachment? That's the difference between the two "teams".

1. One cannot compare 9/11 and 9/11/11. The 9/11 attacks happened on our own soil while 9/11/11 attacks happened in a bumfark country that half the Americans cant find on a map. 9/11 was highly traumatic for us as a nation. 9/11/11 was not traumatic at all. One was politically stable and the other was going through a revolution. One involved the death of women and children and the other did not. These two attacks are not comparable at all.

 2. My statement does not destroy your point. Hyperpartisan bullshiat is why 9/11/11 is still brought up. You have a very valid concern. Most people who talk about Benghazi are just repeating what they have heard from others without any independent though process from their friends to them. Smart people believe dumb shiat because they trust people they shouldnt.


Once - typo
Twice- typo or confusion
Thrice - retardation

//It was 9/11/12, but thanks FoxNews for keeping you misinfromed.

He reports, you deride.™
 
2013-05-20 10:40:43 AM  

Gulper Eel: Carter is most definitely on my most-overrated list, along with Wilson, LBJ, Reagan, Jackson and Obama.


Well he couldn't have been too overrated. He was a one termer and every republican thinks he's the worst next to Obama. I think people like Carter for the things he's done post-Presidency*. I respect him only because he has a degree in nuclear physics and not a law degree from a school Daddy got him into.

* and his love of beer
 
2013-05-20 10:42:09 AM  

Ned Stark: So, what you are saying is that Republicans support half of all murderous authoritarian presidents and Democrats support them all?


I'm saying that for a brief moment everyone dropped their partisan bullshiat in a time of crisis, something I don't see the republicans having the ability to ever do.
 
2013-05-20 10:44:16 AM  

coeyagi: cman: Mugato: Put it this way. What if Obama was elected in 2000. What if 9/11 happened under Obama and two bullshiat wars as a result. Would he have a 90+% approval rating like Bush (briefly) did? What if Bush was elected in 2008 and four people were killed in an embassy half a world away and he didn't hold his own umbrella. Would the Democrats be calling for his impeachment? That's the difference between the two "teams".

1. One cannot compare 9/11 and 9/11/11. The 9/11 attacks happened on our own soil while 9/11/11 attacks happened in a bumfark country that half the Americans cant find on a map. 9/11 was highly traumatic for us as a nation. 9/11/11 was not traumatic at all. One was politically stable and the other was going through a revolution. One involved the death of women and children and the other did not. These two attacks are not comparable at all.

 2. My statement does not destroy your point. Hyperpartisan bullshiat is why 9/11/11 is still brought up. You have a very valid concern. Most people who talk about Benghazi are just repeating what they have heard from others without any independent though process from their friends to them. Smart people believe dumb shiat because they trust people they shouldnt.

Once - typo
Twice- typo or confusion
Thrice - retardation

//It was 9/11/12, but thanks FoxNews for keeping you misinfromed.

He reports, you deride.™


You are correct. I don't know why I thought it happened in 2011. Probably the wrong neuron fired giving the incorrect date.

/BTW I don't watch Fox.
//I am a BBC News man
 
2013-05-20 10:44:28 AM  
"and yet I cannot recall any significant examples, nor does a look back at those years reveal any scandals resulting from his administration's governance. It was not perfect, but it was not corrupt."

Does he mean, other than those pallets of billions in cash that vanished in Iraq?  For a single example.

But I'm sure it was an honest mistake, and all the cash has been accounted for, and stern letters were sent to the totally honest and too-trusting people who let it happen.
 
2013-05-20 10:50:24 AM  

Kibbler: "and yet I cannot recall any significant examples, nor does a look back at those years reveal any scandals resulting from his administration's governance. It was not perfect, but it was not corrupt."

Does he mean, other than those pallets of billions in cash that vanished in Iraq?  For a single example.

But I'm sure it was an honest mistake, and all the cash has been accounted for, and stern letters were sent to the totally honest and too-trusting people who let it happen.


FYI they found that missing pallet money years ago. It was pretty much piss-poor paperwork.
 
2013-05-20 10:52:37 AM  
It's really not.
 
2013-05-20 10:54:21 AM  
FTA:All through George W. Bush's two terms, the Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi and others claimed that they represented "a culture of corruption" and yet I cannot recall any significant examples, nor does a look back at those years reveal any scandals resulting from his administration's governance. It was not perfect, but it was not corrupt.

At least he came right out of the gate letting you know he is full of shiat,or perhaps was just not even alive during the Bush administration.
 
2013-05-20 10:55:50 AM  
graphics8.nytimes.com

Worse than these two?
 
2013-05-20 10:56:26 AM  

Mugato: Ned Stark: So, what you are saying is that Republicans support half of all murderous authoritarian presidents and Democrats support them all?

I'm saying that for a brief moment everyone dropped their partisan bullshiat in a time of crisis, something I don't see the republicans having the ability to ever do.


Yes Democrats look very reasonable and level headed and bipartisan.

Also half a million people died.

But come on, be reasonable!
 
2013-05-20 10:58:55 AM  
I thought we were done comparing Obama to Reagan?
 
2013-05-20 10:58:56 AM  

coeyagi: The Historians Never Got the GOP memo entitled "We Can Haz Mulligan?".


I think not.
 
2013-05-20 11:01:03 AM  
here's the rubric: take everything that's actually true about bush and say it about obama.
simple as that.
 
2013-05-20 11:04:15 AM  

mentula: here's the rubric: take everything that's actually true about bush and say it about obama.
simple as that.


"Rubric"? Do you subscribe to some Word of the Day or Improve Your Vocabulary scheme and that was the word of the day?

If so then holy shiat awesome job fitting that word into a conversation.
 
2013-05-20 11:05:18 AM  

cman: Kibbler: "and yet I cannot recall any significant examples, nor does a look back at those years reveal any scandals resulting from his administration's governance. It was not perfect, but it was not corrupt."

Does he mean, other than those pallets of billions in cash that vanished in Iraq?  For a single example.

But I'm sure it was an honest mistake, and all the cash has been accounted for, and stern letters were sent to the totally honest and too-trusting people who let it happen.

FYI they found that missing pallet money years ago. It was pretty much piss-poor paperwork.



From the Article:
The mystery of $6 billion that http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/06/13/exp.tsr.todd.miss ing.iraq.cash.cnn" target=_blank>seemed to go missing in the early days of the Iraq war has been resolved, according to a new report.

That's funny. I remember when it was $9 Billion.

Monday, January 31, 2005 Posted: 0412 GMT
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Nearly $9 billion of money spent on Iraqi reconstruction is unaccounted for because of inefficiencies and bad management, according to a watchdog report published Sunday.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/">http://ed ition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/


/go figure
 
2013-05-20 11:09:43 AM  
I know!


I would have gotten a 25% instead of 15% raise this year if Romney had been elected.


DAMN YOU FARTBAMA!!
 
2013-05-20 11:09:53 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: cman: Kibbler: "and yet I cannot recall any significant examples, nor does a look back at those years reveal any scandals resulting from his administration's governance. It was not perfect, but it was not corrupt."

Does he mean, other than those pallets of billions in cash that vanished in Iraq?  For a single example.

But I'm sure it was an honest mistake, and all the cash has been accounted for, and stern letters were sent to the totally honest and too-trusting people who let it happen.

FYI they found that missing pallet money years ago. It was pretty much piss-poor paperwork.


From the Article:
The mystery of $6 billion that http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/06/13/exp.tsr.todd.miss ing.iraq.cash.cnn" target=_blank>seemed to go missing in the early days of the Iraq war has been resolved, according to a new report.

That's funny. I remember when it was $9 Billion.

Monday, January 31, 2005 Posted: 0412 GMT
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Nearly $9 billion of money spent on Iraqi reconstruction is unaccounted for because of inefficiencies and bad management, according to a watchdog report published Sunday.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/">http://ed ition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/


/go figure


We were talking about pallets of cash that went missing.
 
2013-05-20 11:11:07 AM  

cman: mentula: here's the rubric: take everything that's actually true about bush and say it about obama.
simple as that.

"Rubric"? Do you subscribe to some Word of the Day or Improve Your Vocabulary scheme and that was the word of the day?


no, in fac i tawk like dat natchilly.
 
2013-05-20 11:11:57 AM  
He's not even the worst President in the last two.
 
2013-05-20 11:12:05 AM  
Obama isn't even the worst president of the 21st century.
 
2013-05-20 11:17:41 AM  
Whose idea was it to put Grant and Jackson on money? A corrupt moron who let his cronies steal from the treasury, and a psychopathic murdering racist?
 
2013-05-20 11:23:59 AM  

mentula: here's the rubric: take everything that's actually true about bush and say it about obama.
simple as that.


I had to go look that up.  I don't have to look up words often.

Thank you for making me smarter today!
 
2013-05-20 11:29:57 AM  

AkaDad: Anyone who uses hyperbole is worse than Hitler.


And if Hitler says, "If I've told you once, I've told you a million times," then it's a divide-by-Hitler error.
 
2013-05-20 11:45:22 AM  

Gulper Eel: Philip Francis Queeg: So what makes Carter the worst? Just your opinion that he was somehow supposed to be "different"? That he didn't support repressive regimes that you preferred?

Carter's not on my worst list at all (upthread I went with Buchanan, Tyler, Hoover, Fillmore, Nixon) - but he is painted as a saint so often, and in supposed contrast to "warmongers", that I have to call bullshiat.

Carter is most definitely on my most-overrated list, along with Wilson, LBJ, Reagan, Jackson and Obama.


You seem to have a lot of problems with Carter's foreign policy.

Start with Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. If Carter had done nothing, do you think things would have worked out?  That country was on a trajectory to failure.  A half-nutty warlord takes charge of an African nation and wrecks it. Yeah, never seen that before, or since.

Indonesia - Do you think Suharto would have played nice in East Timor, if only we hand't sold him weapons?  Do you think the US is the only source for weapons?

I'm not defending Carter's actions on these, I'm saying laying the blame for those deaths on him is not reasonable. The Iraq war happened solely because of the Bush administration.  Instead of Saddam murdering a few thousand political opponents a year, we cranked the slaughter up to a massive scale (and it's still going on). We actually caused that, as versus Carter, who facilitated these disasters.

You also ignore Carter's success in the Middle East - the Camp David accords. Getting Egypt to stand down was a big boost to Israel's security, and thus the stability of the region.

Carter's failures were from two things: he took the wrong steps to deal with the economy, and in general he micromanaged .small things and thus failed to tackle big initiatives.
 
2013-05-20 12:03:13 PM  
i86.photobucket.com

Not even close subby. Harding makes Carter and Nixon look good.
 
2013-05-20 12:04:11 PM  
Not the best.  But then I liked that Clinton played the sax.  Oh Politics?  Not interested.
 
2013-05-20 12:11:48 PM  

Kibbler: AkaDad: Anyone who uses hyperbole is worse than Hitler.

And if Hitler says, "If I've told you once, I've told you a million times," then it's a divide-by-Hitler error.


You guys are nuts. Hyperbole is literally the single greatest linguistic technique of all time!

/of all time.
 
2013-05-20 12:13:35 PM  

seniorgato: Not the best.  But then I liked that Clinton played the sax.  Oh Politics?  Not interested.


Nixon tickled the ivories like a pro. Did any presidents play drums? I wonder what the best Presidential band would look like.
 
2013-05-20 12:19:26 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: seniorgato: Not the best.  But then I liked that Clinton played the sax.  Oh Politics?  Not interested.

Nixon tickled the ivories like a pro. Did any presidents play drums? I wonder what the best Presidential band would look like.


Obama--lead singer
Nixon--Piano
Clinton--Sax
Dubya--Washboard
 
2013-05-20 12:19:54 PM  
God Fark is particularly stupid right now. It's like back when Bush got elected, everyone was so damn stupid on this board, had no idea what they were in store for.
 
2013-05-20 12:20:56 PM  

Spad31: TommyymmoT: Dear subby, and I mean this most sincerely,
[i487.photobucket.com image 850x478]

I'm not subby, so I won't be offing myself because of your post, but I do have to ask: why do you care so much? Why would you give a shiat what someone thinks about someone you voted for? O doesn't know you and wouldn't give you the time of day if you met him on the street.


I'll take a swing at this- it's because words MEAN something.  We realize we live in a postmodern world and that politics have also reached the point where political language has become detached from observable reality, at least for a large segment of the population.

It's not just stupid that folks like Glenn Beck regularly compare the president to Hitler or use the fascism word.  It's debasing of the language and ultimately dangerous in that it lessons the gravity of the language should such a specter ever reappear on the world scene.
 
2013-05-20 12:21:58 PM  
If you know anything about history, Buchanan, Fillmore and Harding will always be at the very bottom.
 
2013-05-20 12:26:49 PM  
I disagree with Obama's politics, but there are a lot of presidents who were worse.  Agree with it or not, Obama did get health care passed.  and the stock market isn't doing too shabby either.  Right now I see Obama in the middle of the pack.
 
2013-05-20 12:27:32 PM  

Gyrfalcon: If you know anything about history, Buchanan, Fillmore and Harding will always be at the very bottom.


That's a huge leap of faith you're taking with the Teabaggers.
 
2013-05-20 12:32:04 PM  
He is certainly the blackest.
 
2013-05-20 12:35:25 PM  

cman: Sorry, subs, but I seriously doubt anyone could take that title from Carter.


www.veteranstoday.com
 
2013-05-20 12:36:01 PM  

doyner: UrukHaiGuyz: seniorgato: Not the best.  But then I liked that Clinton played the sax.  Oh Politics?  Not interested.

Nixon tickled the ivories like a pro. Did any presidents play drums? I wonder what the best Presidential band would look like.

Obama--lead singer
Nixon--Piano
Clinton--Sax
Dubya--Washboard


I like it. According to the Googles Warren G. Harding once said, "I played every instrument but the slide trombone and the E-flat cornet." Add him in the mix and let 'em rip on some New Orleans style swing.

Set List:

Don't Get Around (philibusters) Much Anymore
Is You Is or Is You Ain't My Constituents
Pennies from Taxpayers
Mack the Lobbyist
 
2013-05-20 12:38:11 PM  
That's odd, I missed the second Civil War breaking out.
 
2013-05-20 12:45:04 PM  

Kibbler: AkaDad: Anyone who uses hyperbole is worse than Hitler.

And if Hitler says, "If I've told you once, I've told you a million times," then it's a divide-by-Hitler error.


I literally can't type a reply to that.
 
2013-05-20 12:59:25 PM  

Spad31: TommyymmoT: Dear subby, and I mean this most sincerely,
[i487.photobucket.com image 850x478]

I'm not subby, so I won't be offing myself because of your post, but I do have to ask: why do you care so much? Why would you give a shiat what someone thinks about someone you voted for? O doesn't know you and wouldn't give you the time of day if you met him on the street.


The problem is that it's a reminder that Obama could cure cancer and people like him would whine that he's eliminating jobs in health care.  But that's not the real problem.  The REAL problem is that people like him dominate American media, all the while crying and moaning that people who disagree with him dominate the American media.

The same people who are patently against the Fairness Act demand equal time whenever there's a slightly louder liberal voice in the media.  And these people get people elected.  The Tea Party politicians didn't dominate the 2010 midterms because their ideas were good or that they cared about the American people.  It's because they had a VERY strong media arm in the form of talk radio and Fox News (cue the graphic of "FNC Present the Tea Party Rallies").  The reason they were beaten so badly, and only kept the Congress because of aggressive redistricting, was because of buyer's remorse.

And let's face it, the first couple sentences of the article say "I can't remember anything corrupt the Bush administration did."  Seriously?  SERIOUSLY?!
 
2013-05-20 01:03:03 PM  

GiantRex: Aggregate results, polls of historical rankings of US presidents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the _ United_States

37. Ulysses S. Grant
38. Millard Fillmore
39. William Henry Harrison
40. Franklin Pierce
41. Andrew Johnson
42. James Buchanan
43. Warren G. Harding


If your presidency has been qualified as being worse than a president who caught a case of the sniffles and died 30 days into his term, you have the kind of long and unyielding suckage that Jenna Haze would sit up and takes notes from you in order to improve her technique.
 
2013-05-20 01:09:49 PM  
Gulper Eel:
In Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, Carter the master of African diplomacy helped force out the nasty bigot Ian Smith but then threw in behind the vastly worse Robert Mugabe knowing full well what he was about, and helped ruin that country as surely as if we had carpet-bombed it.

That's complete BS. At the time Mugabe was, or at least appeared to be, reasonable and progressive. Many whites and blacks in Zimbabwe supported him and had great hopes for his administration and the country. It was only much later that he either changed or showed his true colors (different views on this). I have many black and white Zim friends and they all have told me the same. Carter was wrong about him too but where is your evidence that he knew what Mugabe's true nature was? Stop rewriting history to fit your agenda.
 
2013-05-20 01:15:31 PM  

cman: Mugato: Mugato: cman: Sorry, subs, but I seriously doubt anyone could take that title from Carter.

How many countries did Carter invade under false pretenses? I missed have cut my history class that day.

must have, that is

Since when does lying make one a terrible President?


Since those lies costs lives that number in the hundreds of thousands.  Between that, the media consolidation that but hundreds of communications companies out of business, the callous disregard for what is best for the American people (seriously, when confronted with the fact that Americans felt they did the wrong thing, both Cheney and Bush responded "So?"), aggressive contempt for leaders in other countries (there's a reason that before the photo of world leaders during the emergency summit towards the end of Bush's term, no one would shake his hand...and, by the way, John Bolton), and almost comical arrogance towards the people he has to negotiate with (and next time a Republican refers to Obama as "arrogant", which is code for "uppity", no one in the Obama administration has told an elected official to go F himself on the floor of the House or Senate).

Basically, what I'm saying is that George W. Bush is certainly the worst President in my lifetime.  Also, if he hadn't been so paranoid, Nixon would've been pretty good, too.
 
2013-05-20 01:15:59 PM  

ikanreed: cman: Sorry, subs, but I seriously doubt anyone could take that title from Carter.

Main thing Carter did wrong: tried to control inflation during a recession.  He'd be a conservative hero today.


The main reason Carter is called a bad president is because he was in Reagan's way.  After the election, everything Carter did was thrown out, whether it made sense or not.
 
2013-05-20 01:36:51 PM  

cman: Sorry, subs, but I seriously doubt anyone could take that title from Carter.


I forget, was Carter the one who got impeached or the one who sold arms to Iran to fund drug cartels in Central America?  Oh no, he was the one let 9/11 happen on his watch.  Forgot about that. He does suck!
 
2013-05-20 01:38:28 PM  

cman: I hear a lot about how Vietnam was one of those kind of wars. JFK Eisenhower put the first troops there


Fixed that for you.
 
2013-05-20 01:41:43 PM  

cman: Mugato: Gulper Eel: B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but he was different from Reagan, Nixon and Bush?

We'll have to agree to disagree if you think all of that is worse than a campaign that cost  4 trillion dollars and around a half million deaths. Plus the laundry list of other shiat Bush did that everyone already knows.

I hear a lot about how Vietnam was one of those kind of wars. JFK put the first troops there and LBJ significantly increased them to obscene levels; yet it is Nixon who always gets the shaft for it. Obama didnt end the Iraq war as soon as he entered the White House. In fact, Obama wanted to keep troops there, but the Iraqi refusal to grant soldier immunity convinced him to bring them home.

LBJ and JFK get a free pass and Nixon takes it up the ass. Isnt that kinda farked up?

All I am saying is that if you are gonna throw out the "but-but-but-BUSH!" arguments then stop treating those on your side as flawless. JFK started a war that killed over 2 million Vietnamese and yet you guys love him.


how many illegal sorties over Cambodia did LBJ and JFK approve?
 
2013-05-20 01:44:10 PM  

floor: I give Nixon credit for opening relations with China


And now that China took our manufacturing jobs and we owe them money, I guess that's Carter's fault. :/
 
2013-05-20 01:53:05 PM  

SlothB77: I disagree with Obama's politics, but there are a lot of presidents who were worse.  Agree with it or not, Obama did get health care passed.  and the stock market isn't doing too shabby either.  Right now I see Obama in the middle of the pack.


you reasonable bastard! I AM OUTRAGED
 
2013-05-20 01:53:35 PM  

Herr Docktor Heinrich Wisenheimer: floor: I give Nixon credit for opening relations with China

And now that China took our manufacturing jobs and we owe them money, I guess that's Carter's fault. :/


This Carter guy seems to have the whole world against him.  Must be the last name:

www.citynews.ca

/what a dick
 
2013-05-20 01:56:15 PM  
Please tell us exactly why he is the worst president ever. Please do not use stupid answers like Socializim! or Death Panels.
 
2013-05-20 01:58:14 PM  

Rann Xerox: GiantRex: Aggregate results, polls of historical rankings of US presidents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the _ United_States

39. William Henry Harrison


If your presidency has been qualified as being worse than a president who caught a case of the sniffles and died 30 days into his term, you have the kind of long and unyielding suckage that Jenna Haze would sit up and takes notes from you in order to improve her technique.


He should just be left off those lists entirely. He didn't really do anything as President, good or bad.
 
2013-05-20 02:02:07 PM  

dennysgod: [i86.photobucket.com image 275x468]

Not even close subby. Harding makes Carter and Nixon look good.


Sorry, but Harding doesn't compare to Nixon in sleaze. No, really.

When counting the amount of damage caused, the worst president was, hands down, Woodrow Wilson. Then the couple or three right before the civil war. Then Dubya. Then Nixon.
 
2013-05-20 02:02:28 PM  
The first thing the article mentions is "shadowy Czars." I didn't bother to read the rest of the article if the author didn't bother to do a little research to find out that czars are nothing new, and Obama does not seem to have an inordinate number of them. If that's his lede, there isn't much else I would trust from this guy.
 
2013-05-20 02:05:01 PM  

Rann Xerox: GiantRex: Aggregate results, polls of historical rankings of US presidents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the _ United_States

37. Ulysses S. Grant
38. Millard Fillmore
39. William Henry Harrison
40. Franklin Pierce
41. Andrew Johnson
42. James Buchanan
43. Warren G. Harding

If your presidency has been qualified as being worse than a president who caught a case of the sniffles and died 30 days into his term, you have the kind of long and unyielding suckage that Jenna Haze would sit up and takes notes from you in order to improve her technique.


Sorry, but Harrison was the greatest president we ever had. My favorite anyway. All presidents should follow his lead.
 
2013-05-20 02:16:21 PM  

Mugato: cman: Since when does lying make one a terrible President?

Dude, go away.

a confluence of scandals involving Benghazi-Gate, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Department of Justice. Let's not forget "Fast and Furious."

He forgot Umbrellagate. I mean as long as you're calling every faux-outrage vomited out by a republican a "scandal", you might as well include them all.


I thought we agreed that "gate" is old and busted and "ghazi" is new hotness?

Umbrlleghazi, I believe.
 
2013-05-20 02:20:11 PM  

DeaH: The first thing the article mentions is "shadowy Czars." I didn't bother to read the rest of the article if the author didn't bother to do a little research to find out that czars are nothing new, and Obama does not seem to have an inordinate number of them. If that's his lede, there isn't much else I would trust from this guy.


To be fair to the guy, he clearly has been hit repeatedly in the head, making it hard for him to understand how the US government works, or remember the truly jaw-dropping number of scandals under the Bush administration. So take pity on him, and hope he gets the medical care he clearly is in dire need of.
 
2013-05-20 02:31:01 PM  
Yes it is.

It's not hyperbole to say he may the most disapointing president in American history, given that he had such a high level of hype and hyperbolic expectations...And a valid argument can be made that he is among the worst in terms of overall effectiveness and inability to get government to work properly and a lackluster economic recovery, and a variety of failures to produce success...

But we have definatley had worse. I still think Carter was worse, even along the same measures.

And don't get me started on Herbert Hoover or Chester A. Arthur.
 
2013-05-20 02:44:18 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Yes it is.

It's not hyperbole to say he may the most disapointing president in American history, given that he had such a high level of hype and hyperbolic expectations...And a valid argument can be made that he is among the worst in terms of overall effectiveness and inability to get government to work properly and a lackluster economic recovery, and a variety of failures to produce success...

But we have definatley had worse. I still think Carter was worse, even along the same measures.

And don't get me started on Herbert Hoover or Chester A. Arthur.


You must have been born in February 2009.
 
2013-05-20 02:48:53 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Yes it is.

It's not hyperbole to say he may the most disapointing president in American history, given that he had such a high level of hype and hyperbolic expectations...And a valid argument can be made that he is among the worst in terms of overall effectiveness and inability to get government to work properly and a lackluster economic recovery, and a variety of failures to produce success...

But we have definatley had worse. I still think Carter was worse, even along the same measures.

And don't get me started on Herbert Hoover or Chester A. Arthur.


BP is concerned. Hey why aren't you in the Jonathan Karl thread telling us how wrong you were about the White House falsifying those Benghazi emails.
 
2013-05-20 02:52:03 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Yes it is.

It's not hyperbole to say he may the most disapointing president in American history, given that he had such a high level of hype and hyperbolic expectations...And a valid argument can be made that he is among the worst in terms of overall effectiveness and inability to get government to work properly and a lackluster economic recovery, and a variety of failures to produce success...

But we have definatley had worse. I still think Carter was worse, even along the same measures.

And don't get me started on Herbert Hoover or Chester A. Arthur.


The economy is getting better, we have a healthcare bill that will not allow poor people to die in the street, DOW is up, Housing is better, Jobs are up and we are pulling out of Afghanistan. This is despite the GOP obstructing everything and trying to manufacture scandal after scandal.
 
2013-05-20 02:58:39 PM  

Mugato: Mugato: cman: Sorry, subs, but I seriously doubt anyone could take that title from Carter.

How many countries did Carter invade under false pretenses? I missed have cut my history class that day.

must have, must of, that is


/pet peave
 
2013-05-20 03:13:43 PM  

TommyymmoT: Dear subby, and I mean this most sincerely,
[i487.photobucket.com image 850x478]


Hey, the last time I told someone to kill himself, I got a two-day vacation. What's with the double standard?
 
2013-05-20 03:20:06 PM  

Tommy Moo: Whose idea was it to put Grant and Jackson on money? A corrupt moron who let his cronies steal from the treasury, and a psychopathic murdering racist?


Are you crazy?  The former is perfectly appropriate.  The latter... well, only in America.  Jacksonian democracy would be subset of the Tea Party today.
 
2013-05-20 03:20:46 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: The economy is getting better, we have a healthcare bill that will not allow poor people to die in the street,

Housing is better, Jobs are up and we are pulling out of Afghanistan. 

Yes. But barely. Not exactly a rousing success, and not even the most optimistic are calling it a full recovery yet, after 5 years. We were pulling out of Afghanistan before he was elected.

Obama himself said of the healthcare bill that there is something in there for everyone to hate. It's a big, nasty, sloppy mess that will cost people more money, and doesn't do a thing to control rising health care costs. Also, I'm not sure  what emergency crisis of people dying "in the streets" you refer to, or how the ACA changes that.

This is despite the GOP obstructing everything and trying to manufacture scandal after scandal.
Yep. They are assholes. The opposition party is definately going above and beyond in their opposition.

But that does not make him a succesful president. Our GREAT Presidents are the ones who took a really difficult situation and managed to bring the country out of it on top. The ones that took a challenging time in our history and managed to mostly muddle through without completely tanking the whole thing are not really looked upon as examples of success.

I find it nearly impossible tp argue that Obama has been a succesful president. "Coulda been worse" is faint praise.
 
2013-05-20 03:22:08 PM  
I agree, it's not hyperbole.

It's word substitution.

Specifically, substitution of "Barack Obama" for "Warren G. Harding".
 
2013-05-20 03:22:50 PM  

Flying Code Monkey: Mugato: Mugato: cman: Sorry, subs, but I seriously doubt anyone could take that title from Carter.

How many countries did Carter invade under false pretenses? I missed have cut my history class that day.

must have, must of, that is

/pet peave


Must have is the correct usage, I believe?
 
2013-05-20 03:28:43 PM  
It is correct to say that statement is not hyperbolic because hyperbole implies a gross exaggeration of the truth. The statement is, in fact, simply false.
 
2013-05-20 03:32:52 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Zeppelininthesky: The economy is getting better, we have a healthcare bill that will not allow poor people to die in the street, Housing is better, Jobs are up and we are pulling out of Afghanistan. 

Yes. But barely. Not exactly a rousing success, and not even the most optimistic are calling it a full recovery yet, after 5 years. We were pulling out of Afghanistan before he was elected.

Obama himself said of the healthcare bill that there is something in there for everyone to hate. It's a big, nasty, sloppy mess that will cost people more money, and doesn't do a thing to control rising health care costs. Also, I'm not sure  what emergency crisis of people dying "in the streets" you refer to, or how the ACA changes that.

This is despite the GOP obstructing everything and trying to manufacture scandal after scandal.
Yep. They are assholes. The opposition party is definately going above and beyond in their opposition.

But that does not make him a succesful president. Our GREAT Presidents are the ones who took a really difficult situation and managed to bring the country out of it on top. The ones that took a challenging time in our history and managed to mostly muddle through without completely tanking the whole thing are not really looked upon as examples of success.

I find it nearly impossible tp argue that Obama has been a succesful president. "Coulda been worse" is faint praise.


The fact that he is not Bush is successful in its own way. Imagine what the country would be like if the GOP didn't hate him so much.
 
2013-05-20 03:40:49 PM  

Citrate1007: Why do I give a shiat what Canada thinks?


Because they're agreeing with Right-Wing talking points? Dontcha know that's the ONLY time it's okay to agree with a foreigner?
 
2013-05-20 03:49:46 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Yes. But barely. Not exactly a rousing success, and not even the most optimistic are calling it a full recovery yet, after 5 years. We were pulling out of Afghanistan before he was elected.


You were pulling out of Iraq not Afghanistan.

BojanglesPaladin: Obama himself said of the healthcare bill that there is something in there for everyone to hate. It's a big, nasty, sloppy mess that will cost people more money, and doesn't do a thing to control rising health care costs. Also, I'm not sure what emergency crisis of people dying "in the streets" you refer to, or how the ACA changes that.


Haven't health care costs been stabilizing lately? Also instead of dropping a turd in a thread to get a response you might want to read it first. One poster specifically mentions pre-existing condititions and that Obamacare was life saving in his instance.

BojanglesPaladin: But that does not make him a succesful president. Our GREAT Presidents are the ones who took a really difficult situation and managed to bring the country out of it on top. The ones that took a challenging time in our history and managed to mostly muddle through without completely tanking the whole thing are not really looked upon as examples of success.


Usually that happens because the opposition is willing to work with them or that they have massive legislation majorities. Kind of hard for Obama when the opposition puts out a memo to oppose him from day one.
 
2013-05-20 03:52:07 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: The fact that he is not Bush is successful in its own way. Imagine what the country would be like if the GOP didn't hate him so much.


Neither of those statements, even if perfectly and fully true change anything about the succesfulness of Obama's actual presidency.

Certainly, if the world was different from what it is, the world would be different. But it's not, and when we evaluate a President, we must base it on what is, not what we wish it was. If Obama was the president everyone wishes he was, he would be the greatest President the world has ever seen. But he's not.
 
2013-05-20 03:57:42 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Zeppelininthesky: The fact that he is not Bush is successful in its own way. Imagine what the country would be like if the GOP didn't hate him so much.

Neither of those statements, even if perfectly and fully true change anything about the succesfulness of Obama's actual presidency.

Certainly, if the world was different from what it is, the world would be different. But it's not, and when we evaluate a President, we must base it on what is, not what we wish it was. If Obama was the president everyone wishes he was, he would be the greatest President the world has ever seen. But he's not.


Usually, you don't judge how great a president is until after he is out of office. That said, I don't think he has been that horrible so far. He has a lot of challenges ahead. GOP is the biggest challenge.
 
2013-05-20 03:58:30 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Zeppelininthesky: The fact that he is not Bush is successful in its own way. Imagine what the country would be like if the GOP didn't hate him so much.

Neither of those statements, even if perfectly and fully true change anything about the succesfulness of Obama's actual presidency.

Certainly, if the world was different from what it is, the world would be different. But it's not, and when we evaluate a President, we must base it on what is, not what we wish it was. If Obama was the president everyone wishes he was, he would be the greatest President the world has ever seen. But he's not.


So your whole argument is a boring strawman. How quaint.
 
2013-05-20 04:13:27 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Fark you, Canada. When we want your opinion we'll...no, we will never want it.


No problem. Pretty please can I also never enter your horrible nation again as well?
 
2013-05-20 04:25:58 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: It's not hyperbole to say he may the most disapointing president in American history, given that he had such a high level of hype and hyperbolic expectations...


You mean he had one of the biggest fark ups from a previous President to fix and a congress determined to make him a one term President. Yeah, That would make any President a disappointment.
 
2013-05-20 04:29:25 PM  

tuckeg: That's complete BS. At the time Mugabe was, or at least appeared to be, reasonable and progressive.


If you were as naive as Carter, sure. The US knew he was a Marxist from the get-go, and that as early as 1970 he had been working with the North Koreans. People in the west ignored that intelligence, and saw what they wanted to see.
 
2013-05-20 04:34:34 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: Usually, you don't judge how great a president is until after he is out of office.


True. But after a full term in office, I think we can safely say that he has "failed to succeed" so far. Of course, maybe he can turn it all around in the next 3 years. But as a lame duck, that would seem unlikely. Of course, the mid term elections might change the field a bit, but at the end of the day, unless he is able to come up with a different playbook than the one he has been relying on for the last 5 years, (which he does not seem to be able to do), I do not expect to see radically different results in the remainder of his term.

Also, I did not say he was "horrible". But I do think he has been woefully inadequate to the challenges. And while I do agree that the GOP has been a huge obstacle, I also fail to see that as an "excuse". It's thier job to oppose, and it's his job to convince them to work with him and to work with them to get things done. I think he made a tactical mistake by going all steamroller when he first took office and had both houses on the assumption that he could overcome any obstructions. The GOP, bolstered by the teabaggers have proven him wrong, and he hasn't quite figured out how to handle congress in a non-adversarial, non-confrontational way... yet.

I have no doubt that many here in Fark will now have an instinctive desire to attack me for pointing out that Obama is not doing a Grreeeaaatt! job, but that's my honest opinion. YMMV. I have no interest in debating why Obama is teh awesome, and I'm a poopyhead for not loving him enough.

I wish he had put in a term or two in the Senate before running. I think that a wiser, more matured, and more experienced Senator Obama had the potential to be a truly great President, especially with relationships in congress to draw on. Unfortunately, the anti-Clinton wing pushed him into position, and his natural talent managed to get him into the White House before he was fully ready. I think his biggest weakness is that he just doesn't have the working knowledge and the personal relationships with the people he has to work with in congress. He wasn't a Senator long enough to have a sense of how to twist the arms and massage the egos and reach the consensus. Too often he has tried issuing instructions to congress, and it has not worked well, even within his own party. For what it's worth, I think that without Biden running around in the background doing shuttle diplomacy, it would have been much worse.
 
2013-05-20 04:35:32 PM  

Mugato: You mean he had one of the biggest fark ups from a previous President to fix and a congress determined to make him a one term President.


No. That is not what I mean. I think that is what YOU mean.
 
2013-05-20 04:46:52 PM  

James F. Campbell: Hey, the last time I told someone to kill himself, I got a two-day vacation. What's with the double standard?


you can say almost literally anything you want on fark unless it is aimed at a specific farker, in which case you can only say the nicest possible things

insulting submitter is OK because submitter is ostensibly anonymous even though we all know who it probably is
 
2013-05-20 04:48:00 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Mugato: You mean he had one of the biggest fark ups from a previous President to fix and a congress determined to make him a one term President.

No. That is not what I mean. I think that is what YOU mean.


Well let's see. We're pretty much getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan, which McCain wouldn't have done. We haven't invaded Syria or Iraq, which McCain suggested he would have done. We haven't closed Gitmo maybe or maybe or maybe not because the bill closing it was attached to the budget that would pay our soldiers and he hasn't gotten rid of the Patriot Act.

 No one thought that Obama would completely fix everything Bush farked up but he's a lot better than the alternative.
 
2013-05-20 04:48:34 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Unfortunately, the anti-Clinton wing pushed him into position, and his natural talent managed to get him into the White House before he was fully ready. I think his biggest weakness is that he just doesn't have the working knowledge and the personal relationships with the people he has to work with in congress.


I think a lot of people look at Obama and try to explain his actions based on the extrovert ideal. That's pretty much what you're describing here, that he couldn't cultivate the personal relationships with people in the Senate necessary to get people to assent to what he wants to do. I think that's the wrong explanation though. I think he's simply an introvert. Try looking at his behavior from that viewpoint. It lines up a lot better with his behavior than the bland assertion that he can't bend enough arms to get votes.

/it also doesn't help that the GOP started from day one opposing him carte blanche
 
2013-05-20 04:49:42 PM  

tuckeg: That's complete BS. At the time Mugabe was, or at least appeared to be, reasonable and progressive. Many whites and blacks in Zimbabwe supported him and had great hopes for his administration and the country. It was only much later that he either changed or showed his true colors (different views on this). I have many black and white Zim friends and they all have told me the same. Carter was wrong about him too but where is your evidence that he knew what Mugabe's true nature was? Stop rewriting history to fit your agenda.


Mugabe has been in power for decades but the country has only gone to shiats in the last ten.  Of course, all the geniuses out there was this coming 30 years ago when they were in diapers because they're so much smarter then we are.

Gulper Eel: If you were as naive as Carter, sure. The US knew he was a Marxist from the get-go, and that as early as 1970 he had been working with the North Koreans. People in the west ignored that intelligence, and saw what they wanted to see.


Who cares if he was a Marxist?  And do you really want to bring out a list of the scum bags the US worked with in the 70's and 80's?  Really?
 
2013-05-20 04:54:11 PM  

Mugato: BojanglesPaladin: Mugato: You mean he had one of the biggest fark ups from a previous President to fix and a congress determined to make him a one term President.

No. That is not what I mean. I think that is what YOU mean.

Well let's see. We're pretty much getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan, which McCain wouldn't have done. We haven't invaded Syria or Iraq, which McCain suggested he would have done. We haven't closed Gitmo maybe or maybe or maybe not because the bill closing it was attached to the budget that would pay our soldiers and he hasn't gotten rid of the Patriot Act.

 No one thought that Obama would completely fix everything Bush farked up but he's a lot better than the alternative.


Again, I am not evaluating Obama actual performance based on could haves or should haves. I am happy to point out that I also WISH it has been different, but it is exactly what it is, and what it is is less than successful.
 
2013-05-20 04:59:11 PM  

Serious Black: think a lot of people look at Obama and try to explain his actions based on the extrovert ideal. That's pretty much what you're describing here, that he couldn't cultivate the personal relationships with people in the Senate necessary to get people to assent to what he wants to do. I think that's the wrong explanation though. I think he's simply an introvert. Try looking at his behavior from that viewpoint. It lines up a lot better with his behavior than the bland assertion that he can't bend enough arms to get votes.

/it also doesn't help that the GOP started from day one opposing him carte blanche


I've never really looked at it from a introvert/extrovert perspective. I'm not particularly interested in playing armchair psychiatrist, and I have no objection if you think he is an introvert. I don;t think he failed to develop the personal relationships becasue he has a personality problem. I think it's simply that he wasn't THERE long enough to have done so. He began campaigning in the early days of his first term, and didn't even finish a full term. No matter how personable, he just didn't spend enough time "in the trenches" with his colleagues to have formed any strong connections.
 
2013-05-20 05:08:19 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Serious Black: think a lot of people look at Obama and try to explain his actions based on the extrovert ideal. That's pretty much what you're describing here, that he couldn't cultivate the personal relationships with people in the Senate necessary to get people to assent to what he wants to do. I think that's the wrong explanation though. I think he's simply an introvert. Try looking at his behavior from that viewpoint. It lines up a lot better with his behavior than the bland assertion that he can't bend enough arms to get votes.

/it also doesn't help that the GOP started from day one opposing him carte blanche

I've never really looked at it from a introvert/extrovert perspective. I'm not particularly interested in playing armchair psychiatrist, and I have no objection if you think he is an introvert. I don;t think he failed to develop the personal relationships becasue he has a personality problem. I think it's simply that he wasn't THERE long enough to have done so. He began campaigning in the early days of his first term, and didn't even finish a full term. No matter how personable, he just didn't spend enough time "in the trenches" with his colleagues to have formed any strong connections.


Let's set aside the personality thing then and focus on what you suggest is the problem. He didn't cultivate personal relationships. What could he have done differently to cultivate those relationships? Does he need to wine and dine people more? Does he need to twist people's arms more? Importantly, if he were to have taken your advice (or took it now for the last three-plus years of his presidency), what would the effects of these better personal relationships be?
 
2013-05-20 05:36:34 PM  

Serious Black: Let's set aside the personality thing then and focus on what you suggest is the problem. He didn't cultivate personal relationships. What could he have done differently to cultivate those relationships?


No need to set it aside, I haven't included his personality. I thought I made that clear at the outset that I think if he had completed a term or two, he would have a better handle on the people, personalities, procedures, and protocol of working with congress having been a congressmen himself for a while. Working through a number of bills, serving for a few years alongside people on either side of the aisle on committees, seeing legislation he helped pass actually be implemented a few years down the road. Working side-by-side with allies and otherwise for 6-12 years wouldcertainly have established some affinity and instinctive knowledge of how to work with congressmen. There is no better teacher than experience, and when it comes to the US congress, he didn't have a whole lot when he began running for the Presidency.
 
2013-05-20 05:37:44 PM  

Mugato: BojanglesPaladin: Mugato: You mean he had one of the biggest fark ups from a previous President to fix and a congress determined to make him a one term President.

No. That is not what I mean. I think that is what YOU mean.

Well let's see. We're pretty much getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan, which McCain wouldn't have done. We haven't invaded Syria or Iraq, which McCain suggested he would have done. We haven't closed Gitmo maybe or maybe or maybe not because the bill closing it was attached to the budget that would pay our soldiers and he hasn't gotten rid of the Patriot Act.

 No one thought that Obama would completely fix everything Bush farked up but he's a lot better than the alternative.


Cat shiat doesnt stink as bad as dog shiat. It is much better than the alternative.
 
2013-05-20 05:49:22 PM  

cman: Cat shiat doesnt stink as bad as dog shiat. It is much better than the alternative.


Which alternative is that? The alternative that didn't happen? Some hypothetical alternate universe?

Since neither McCain nor Kerry won. why not just take a look at the guy who is actually President?
 
2013-05-20 05:52:22 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Serious Black: Let's set aside the personality thing then and focus on what you suggest is the problem. He didn't cultivate personal relationships. What could he have done differently to cultivate those relationships?

No need to set it aside, I haven't included his personality. I thought I made that clear at the outset that I think if he had completed a term or two, he would have a better handle on the people, personalities, procedures, and protocol of working with congress having been a congressmen himself for a while. Working through a number of bills, serving for a few years alongside people on either side of the aisle on committees, seeing legislation he helped pass actually be implemented a few years down the road. Working side-by-side with allies and otherwise for 6-12 years wouldcertainly have established some affinity and instinctive knowledge of how to work with congressmen. There is no better teacher than experience, and when it comes to the US congress, he didn't have a whole lot when he began running for the Presidency.


I gotta be honest. I don't think that's a very good answer to my question. You're focusing solely on his lack of knowledge about knowing the people in Congress and how to move a bill through Congress, but you still haven't actually said what knowledge he lacks. You just glossed over it by saying it would become instinctive after working there for a full term or two. Don't feel bad though; lots of people write articles saying that the president is not leading properly, but they universally never say what would be the proper kind of leadership. I think that's because they have no clue, and admitting they have no clue would be the first step towards realizing that the entire damn political system is broken.

The president does not have magical powers to make people support his legislation. He's tried wining and dining people (see the budget talks). That strategy has mostly failed. He's tried breaking arms (see the gun background checks bill). That strategy failed. He's tried sitting back and letting Congress figure out what legislation to pass (see immigration). That's surely on rocky terms given how opposed to a path to citizenship much of the House GOP caucus is. I'm not sure what else he could try.
 
2013-05-20 06:01:37 PM  

Serious Black: gotta be honest. I don't think that's a very good answer to my question.


Becasue you are asking a different question than what I am discussing. You want an assesment of his leadership, or his personality type, or a hypothetical of "what *I* think the guy out to be doing". And that's not really what I am talking about.

I am saying that it is clear based on his term so far that he is not well equipped to get congressmen (on either side, really) to support him. Other democrats will obviously support him when he is working toward something they already support, but as we have seen on things like gun control, he wasn't even able to get all of his own party on board. In the first few years, Pelosi and Ried could do that for him, but as the years have gone by, he has become less effective in building a strong enough coalition to advance his efforts. We can expect the GOP to oppose him, since that what they were elected to do, but Presdients can usually pick off a few to help pass important stuff.

As you say, Obama has tried this and tried that (and quickly abandoning it when there aren't immediate results), but he's just not able to change the game. Why is that?

Dunno. Lots of overlapping reasons, I'm sure. Don't care, really. But there is no way to ignre the reality of the results at the end of the day.

I just mentioned, that (as I said when he was running the first time) it was too soon. That he was immensely promising, but needed some real work experience in Washington before he got the big promotion. I think I was right about that.

Could imagine what an Obama ABLE to work with both sides of the aisle would be like?
 
2013-05-20 06:10:28 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Serious Black: gotta be honest. I don't think that's a very good answer to my question.

Becasue you are asking a different question than what I am discussing. You want an assesment of his leadership, or his personality type, or a hypothetical of "what *I* think the guy out to be doing". And that's not really what I am talking about.

I am saying that it is clear based on his term so far that he is not well equipped to get congressmen (on either side, really) to support him. Other democrats will obviously support him when he is working toward something they already support, but as we have seen on things like gun control, he wasn't even able to get all of his own party on board. In the first few years, Pelosi and Ried could do that for him, but as the years have gone by, he has become less effective in building a strong enough coalition to advance his efforts. We can expect the GOP to oppose him, since that what they were elected to do, but Presdients can usually pick off a few to help pass important stuff.

As you say, Obama has tried this and tried that (and quickly abandoning it when there aren't immediate results), but he's just not able to change the game. Why is that?

Dunno. Lots of overlapping reasons, I'm sure. Don't care, really. But there is no way to ignre the reality of the results at the end of the day.

I just mentioned, that (as I said when he was running the first time) it was too soon. That he was immensely promising, but needed some real work experience in Washington before he got the big promotion. I think I was right about that.

Could imagine what an Obama ABLE to work with both sides of the aisle would be like?


And this is why your concern trolling is so stupid. We all know the reasons why. It's because the GOP refuses to work with him. Toomey just said so. Olympia Snow admits it. It's party before country at all costs.
 
2013-05-20 06:58:02 PM  
In the history of the nation? I'm not sure.

In the last 50 years? Most definitely.
 
2013-05-20 07:05:19 PM  

randomjsa: In the history of the nation? I'm not sure.

In the last 50 years? Most definitely.


You were born after Bush was in office?
 
2013-05-20 07:17:38 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: randomjsa: In the history of the nation? I'm not sure.

In the last 50 years? Most definitely.

You were born after Bush was in office?


And he's COMPLETELY forgotten Reagan.
 
2013-05-20 07:26:18 PM  
He's the worst president we've had since Dubya (non-inclusive.)
 
2013-05-20 07:49:27 PM  
It's not hyperbole, it's just plain wrong.  Obama is a better president than Reagan was.  But then again, so was Nixon.
 
2013-05-20 08:19:35 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: And do you really want to bring out a list of the scum bags the US worked with in the 70's and 80's? Really?


I'm plenty aware of them. That I think Carter is ridiculously overrated does not mean I think all that much of Nixon, Ford, Reagan or either Bush.

But you have to take your pick - either the Carter sycophants' sales pitch that he was different from Nixon/Ford/Reagan/Bush on human rights is a load of crap, that Carter has been a godawful judge of character in leaders all his life, or that Carter would suck up to damn near  anybody if it advanced his career, starting with Lester Maddox.

You may also choose two or all three options.
 
2013-05-20 08:27:59 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Mugabe has been in power for decades but the country has only gone to shiats in the last ten.


Nonsense. He began his campaign of genocide - Gukurahundi - almost immediately after taking office, signing on in 1980 with the North Koreans he had worked with in the 70's. He has been leading the country to ruin since the beginning.
 
2013-05-20 08:35:03 PM  

Gulper Eel: tuckeg: That's complete BS. At the time Mugabe was, or at least appeared to be, reasonable and progressive.

If you were as naive as Carter, sure. The US knew he was a Marxist from the get-go, and that as early as 1970 he had been working with the North Koreans. People in the west ignored that intelligence, and saw what they wanted to see.


First you said Carter knew what kind of a person Mugabe was and still supported him and now you say Carter was naïve. Please proceed with your next version of history.

If Carter should have not supported Mugabe because of his relationship with North Korea, then why did Saint Ronnie go to China,  the biggest supporter of North Korea, and try to improve our relationship with them?
 
2013-05-20 08:47:10 PM  

cman: Mugato: Gulper Eel: B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but he was different from Reagan, Nixon and Bush?

We'll have to agree to disagree if you think all of that is worse than a campaign that cost  4 trillion dollars and around a half million deaths. Plus the laundry list of other shiat Bush did that everyone already knows.

I hear a lot about how Vietnam was one of those kind of wars. JFK put the first troops there and LBJ significantly increased them to obscene levels; yet it is Nixon who always gets the shaft for it. Obama didnt end the Iraq war as soon as he entered the White House. In fact, Obama wanted to keep troops there, but the Iraqi refusal to grant soldier immunity convinced him to bring them home.

LBJ and JFK get a free pass and Nixon takes it up the ass. Isnt that kinda farked up?

All I am saying is that if you are gonna throw out the "but-but-but-BUSH!" arguments then stop treating those on your side as flawless. JFK started a war that killed over 2 million Vietnamese and yet you guys love him.


I don't give Nixon shiat for that. I give Johnson shiat for that. I give Nixon shiat for bugging offices to spy on opponents. I actually rather admire his foreign policy, which makes me unusual for a liberal.
 
2013-05-20 09:00:12 PM  

tuckeg: First you said Carter knew what kind of a person Mugabe was and still supported him and now you say Carter was naïve. Please proceed with your next version of history


If that was fuzzy to you, sorry. We had intelligence on Mugabe's activities during the 70's. What he was up to and who he was working with wasn't exactly a secret. Carter chose, for reasons never adequately explained, to back him anyway.
 
2013-05-20 09:36:47 PM  
Obama supporters are blind muppets with a hard on for the government controlling every aspect of their lives.
 
2013-05-20 09:41:09 PM  

phedex: Obama supporters are blind muppets with a hard on for the government controlling every aspect of their lives.


Meh. Try harder.
 
2013-05-20 09:55:39 PM  
I dont understand how the president presiding over the institution of both the Federal Reserve and the IRS isnt the worst.  It makes me wonder what exactly people consider to be bad.
 
2013-05-20 10:45:00 PM  

phedex: Obama supporters are blind muppets with a hard on for the government controlling every aspect of their lives.


Conservatives are blind muppets with a hard on for overused talking points.
 
2013-05-20 10:47:42 PM  

Gulper Eel: Satanic_Hamster: Mugabe has been in power for decades but the country has only gone to shiats in the last ten.

Nonsense. He began his campaign of genocide - Gukurahundi - almost immediately after taking office, signing on in 1980 with the North Koreans he had worked with in the 70's. He has been leading the country to ruin since the beginning.


And yet reality disagrees with you.
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-05-20 10:49:59 PM  
I couldn't make it past the first paragraph of derp.
 
2013-05-20 11:04:13 PM  
Listen, Gruper.  No one isn't saying that Mugabe isn't a steaming pile of shiat who's ruining the country.  But to claim he's in League with Satan with Carter's approval from day one and is the 2nd coming of Hitler is a bit hyperbole.
 
2013-05-20 11:51:14 PM  
Sorry, subby. Not even close. In fact, all you have to do is look at his predecessor to prove you wrong on that point.
 
2013-05-21 01:36:46 AM  
All through George W. Bush's two terms, the Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi and others claimed that they represented "a culture of corruption" and yet I cannot recall any significant examples, nor does a look back at those years reveal any scandals resulting from his administration's governance. It was not perfect, but it was not corrupt.

images.encyclopediadramatica.se
 
2013-05-21 01:40:01 AM  

FatherChaos: All through George W. Bush's two terms, the Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi and others claimed that they represented "a culture of corruption" and yet I cannot recall any significant examples, nor does a look back at those years reveal any scandals resulting from his administration's governance. It was not perfect, but it was not corrupt.

[images.encyclopediadramatica.se image 500x389]


That is some seriously Orwellian bullshiat.
 
2013-05-21 02:30:13 AM  

Bloody William: The "Canada Free Press," despite its friendly, Detroit-Freep-not-Free-Republic-Freep-sounding name, is a Toronto-based WND ripoff. Two of its editors:

Arthur Weinreb - Associate Editor Arthur Weinreb is an author, columnist and Associate Editor of Canada Free Press. His work has appeared on Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, Glenn Beck.

Klaus Rohrich - Senior Writer Klaus Rohrich has a regular column on retirementhomes.com and is currently working on his first book dealing with the toxicity of liberalism. His work has been featured on the Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and Lucianne, among others.

And the Editor-in-Chief, Judi McLeod? I'll quote Wikipedia:

In 2005, McLeod and David Hawkins wrote a series of articles on what they described as the' "radical agenda executed across and, operated by the self-styled 'Global Custodians'." They alleged links between "$40 trillion, via an online portal on the seventy-ninth floor of, to '' developed by Canada for alleged use in the UN scam, and fraud.

Conservative writer has described McLeod's writing as that of an "emotionally incontinent ninth grader," while columnist describes her as "eccentric" and the  Canada Free Press as a "whacko news site."


Dear gawd, I do love that quote so. Just wanted to make sure it made it in the thread.

It is not hyperbole to say that the Canada Free Press is the worst excuse for an online publication Canada ever produced.
 
2013-05-21 03:45:44 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: And yet reality disagrees with you.


Life expectancy isn't much of an indicator of how well or badly a country is being run (even Afghanistan's life expectancy has been trending up for the past 50 years), at least not until you get to the point where the nation's really in the shiatter. It takes a while for even a Mugabe to wreck what was a fairly well-functioning country (especially for sub-saharan Africa) prior to his dictatorship. There were enough resources and economic functioning continuing from the pre-Mugabe era to paper over the failure and corruption and plain old evil for about a decade.
 
2013-05-21 05:13:07 AM  

TommyymmoT: Dear subby, and I mean this most sincerely,
[i487.photobucket.com image 850x478]


Zeppelininthesky: randomjsa: In the history of the nation? I'm not sure.

In the last 50 years? Most definitely.

You were born after Bush was in office?


At least Bush loves the U.S.  Obama hates the U.S.
 
2013-05-21 06:03:52 AM  

armoredbulldozer: At least Bush loves the U.S.  Obama hates the U.S.


This is what a triceratops actually believes.
 
2013-05-21 10:42:15 AM  

BojanglesPaladin: Serious Black: gotta be honest. I don't think that's a very good answer to my question.

Becasue you are asking a different question than what I am discussing. You want an assesment of his leadership, or his personality type, or a hypothetical of "what *I* think the guy out to be doing". And that's not really what I am talking about.

I am saying that it is clear based on his term so far that he is not well equipped to get congressmen (on either side, really) to support him. Other democrats will obviously support him when he is working toward something they already support, but as we have seen on things like gun control, he wasn't even able to get all of his own party on board. In the first few years, Pelosi and Ried could do that for him, but as the years have gone by, he has become less effective in building a strong enough coalition to advance his efforts. We can expect the GOP to oppose him, since that what they were elected to do, but Presdients can usually pick off a few to help pass important stuff.

As you say, Obama has tried this and tried that (and quickly abandoning it when there aren't immediate results), but he's just not able to change the game. Why is that?

Dunno. Lots of overlapping reasons, I'm sure. Don't care, really. But there is no way to ignre the reality of the results at the end of the day.

I just mentioned, that (as I said when he was running the first time) it was too soon. That he was immensely promising, but needed some real work experience in Washington before he got the big promotion. I think I was right about that.

Could imagine what an Obama ABLE to work with both sides of the aisle would be like?


There was never a chance for Obama to work with the GOP in Congress. None. Do you remember reading about this meeting the night of Obama's first inauguration? If not, let me refresh your memory:

"The dinner lasted nearly four hours. They parted company almost giddily. The Republicans had agreed on a way forward:

"Go after Geithner. (And indeed Kyl did, the next day: 'Would you answer my question rather than dancing around it-please?')

"Show united and unyielding opposition to the president's economic policies. (Eight days later, Minority Whip Cantor would hold the House Republicans to a unanimous No against Obama's economic stimulus plan.)

"Begin attacking vulnerable Democrats on the airwaves. (The first National Republican Congressional Committee attack ads would run in less than two months.)

"Win the spear point of the House in 2010. Jab Obama relentlessly in 2011. Win the White House and the Senate in 2012."

That is the problem with your assertion that Obama doesn't know how to work with Congress. You are continually refusing to assert just how he could work with Congress better. You cannot tell me what skills he lacks that another term in the Senate would provide outside of already ephemeral things like becoming bros with colleagues. Absent an actual concrete skill he lacks, I have to come up with potential answers myself, and all of my suggestions have been shown time and time again to fail miserably in the real world. Why? Because the Republicans do not want him to succeed no matter what. Senator Pat Toomey admitted this forthrightly last month when he said some/many/most Republicans refused to support his background checks bill because Obama supported it and they couldn't give him a legislative victory.

So please, for the love of God all that is holy in this forsaken universe, tell me what specific skills Obama lacks and, in gory and causal detail, exactly how those skills would cause more Republicans (and possibly Democrats) to support his proposals in Congress.
 
2013-05-21 02:34:57 PM  

Serious Black: That is the problem with your assertion that Obama doesn't know how to work with Congress.


The problem is that you seem to be missing some or all of my point, which has not much to do with Obama as a person per se. While there is a general concensus that personally, Obama is not as charismatic as many presidents have been (Clinton, GW, Reagan were all legendarily charismatic in person), but I don't think that is the primary issue. You seem to think (or want me to argue) there is some personality trait that is missing, or some magical behavior formula that he should be doing to unlock GOP intransigence. I don't. The opposition party is supposed to oppose. Hard. People elected them to do something different, and to stop him. Nothing will change that. He's never going to make them allies, he can only accomodate and redirect their adversarial efforts. But it's not really about inter-personal skills, or the appropriate number of dinners. (Although he seems to think that it is).

In my estimation, the issue is that Obama was elevated before he had a chance to gain the personal knowledge of the power players, the customs, the nuances of dealing with people whose agendas and objectives do not align with your own. He had never been an executive in a position where he had to wrangle people with widely disperate positions who didn;t even like him to work together. Rather, he has almost exclusively worked either as one of many people in a consortium, or surrounded by like-minded people working toward a common objective and sharing a common world-view.  I think that a term or two of working in the Senate would have given him the training and experience to be more adept at learning which battles to fight, which concessions to make without losing your primary objective, and which buttons to push with which congressmen. When to use a stick and when to use a carrot,  and with whom.

Additionaly, after 6-12 years in the senate, he would have had his own power base. He would have had a strong track record and his own set of favors owed, promises made, and political allegiences forged which would have served him well when it came time for difficult legislation to be passed. And congressmen would have known him. They would have known whether he could be bluffed, what he would give on and what he wouldn't.

Instead, we have a young man, eleveted to a position of extreme power with an underdeveloped sense of how to weild that power effectively. There is no doubt that the opposition saw him as green and weak and saw an opportunity to thwart and obstruct him (and they have largely been proven right). But it is also true that when he took office, he leveraged the existing Democratic power base (not his own) that held both houses of congress. Pelosi and Reid did the arm twisting that needed to be done, becasue Obama himsel didn't really have those connections himself. We all remember how ACA barely passed through a midnight procedural technicality, and it was so chock full of slap-dash deal-making and ear-marking that it may ultimately fail. We shoudl also remember that while the GOP was determined to stop him at every turn, he met them with an "I won" in their first big meeting, effectively daring them to try and stop him, and meeting their antagonism with more antagonism, all the while criticizing them publicly for their obstinant failure to agree with his agenda. And, of course, with control of both houses, he was in a position to effectively push past them, and he did, with a starlting array of new legislation from credit card reform, to massive bailouts to mortgage reform, to auto bailouts, to college financing and so on. He effectively over ruled them by calling on the power base and political alliances formed by other people in congress who agreed with him. He has allowed it to become so "my way or the highway", that as you say, people are opposing him just on principle.

Tt was a poor strategic choice in the long term. He created a near panic in a lot of Americans and provided the fuel that launched the Tea party as a viable and (regrettably) effective political movement. The GOP seized that momentum and called his bluff, and got control of one of the houses on the promise to the American people that they would stop him dead in his tracks. And now, everything has effectively ground to a halt. He can't even get background checks through because Pelosi isn't  in charge, and Reid wasn't willing to go to the mats against his own gun-friendly constituancy. Biden has done yoeman's work with the arm-twisting, the cajoling, the courting of favor, leveraging decades of relationships. Obama is having to rely on other people's experience, relationships and connections, becasue he doesn't have as much of his own.

You don't have to agree with this assesment, (I'd be suprised if you did), but that is where I am coming from. I think that Obama is an inneffective President, not because he is personally incapable - quite the opposite. I think that his presidency is tragically weak because natural talent alone is not enough.  As much fun as it is to say that the GOP are all mouth breathing morons, they aren't. they are every bit as shrewd and canny as the Democrats. Except I think that the faction in the DNC that didn't want Hillary made a miscalculation when they decided to elevate Obama as an alternative before he was a seasoned veteran. I think Obama has all the ingredients to be a truly great president, even if I disagree with certain aspects of his agenda (Just as Reagan and Clinton were great presidents I disagreed with on certain things). Obama SHOULD have been another JFK, and I think WOULD have been if he had had more time to practice and gain the hard-won experience needed.

I just think that Obama needed a season or two in the minors before they made him the starting pitcher. Raw talent alone is not enough. You need experience. Even JFK did almost two terms in the Senate, after all.
 
2013-05-21 03:06:54 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Serious Black: That is the problem with your assertion that Obama doesn't know how to work with Congress.

The problem is that you seem to be missing some or all of my point, which has not much to do with Obama as a person per se. While there is a general concensus that personally, Obama is not as charismatic as many presidents have been (Clinton, GW, Reagan were all legendarily charismatic in person), but I don't think that is the primary issue. You seem to think (or want me to argue) there is some personality trait that is missing, or some magical behavior formula that he should be doing to unlock GOP intransigence. I don't. The opposition party is supposed to oppose. Hard. People elected them to do something different, and to stop him. Nothing will change that. He's never going to make them allies, he can only accomodate and redirect their adversarial efforts. But it's not really about inter-personal skills, or the appropriate number of dinners. (Although he seems to think that it is).

In my estimation, the issue is that Obama was elevated before he had a chance to gain the personal knowledge of the power players, the customs, the nuances of dealing with people whose agendas and objectives do not align with your own. He had never been an executive in a position where he had to wrangle people with widely disperate positions who didn;t even like him to work together. Rather, he has almost exclusively worked either as one of many people in a consortium, or surrounded by like-minded people working toward a common objective and sharing a common world-view.  I think that a term or two of working in the Senate would have given him the training and experience to be more adept at learning which battles to fight, which concessions to make without losing your primary objective, and which buttons to push with which congressmen. When to use a stick and when to use a carrot,  and with whom.

Additionaly, after 6-12 years in the senate, he would have had his own power base. He ...


So it's Obama's fault that the GOP acts crazy and obstructs everything. If he had just stayed longer in the senate they would have worked with him in 2016. Honest!
 
Displayed 215 of 215 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report