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  
•       •       •

2489 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 May 2013 at 9:32 AM (47 weeks 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 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 15 of 215 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report