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  
•       •       •

2499 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 215 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report