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.

(Washington Examiner)   It's Monday, so its once again time to ask, "Is Obama the worst president ever?"   (washingtonexaminer.com) divider line 294
    More: Misc, President Obama, worst president, Anthem Blue Cross, health care plans, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Christian churches  
•       •       •

1099 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Aug 2013 at 9:46 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-26 03:13:42 PM  

Brick-House: Infernalist: Brick-House: [530x357 from http://libertyworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Reagan-vs-Obama-Oct ober-11.gif image 530x357]

Again and again, you post these things that demonstrate the current failure of the modern GOP obstructionists.

In the 80s, Democrats worked well with the President for the good of the nation.  These days, the GOP would oppose breathing if the President came out in favor of respiration.

BOB had full control of the the house and senate for the first two years and what did we get, the job killer Obamacare.

and as for the GOP opposing breathing if the President came out in favor of respiration. Perhaps that says more about BOB's lack of leadership that anything else. Sorry, but BOB's blindness to everything except his socialists agenda is what is keeping this economy in the toilet.  Speaking of which...

[403x287 from http://www.orangepower.com/attachments/z-obamanomics-jpg.20409/ image 403x287]


False. He had control of the House and Senate for a couple of months. The current obstruction is the fault of the Republicans and ONLY the Republicans. How is Obama supposed to work with a Congress if the Congress is absolutely unwilling to work with him? Hell, the Republicans filibustered their own bill because they thought the Democrats would actually pass the bill. The Republicans have filibustered more bills than anyone in recent memory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfenXNi9HcI">http://www.youtube.com/w atch?v=vfenXNi9HcI

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/113.htm

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/112.htm

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/111.htm

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/110.htm
 
2013-08-26 03:15:12 PM  
simplicimus: Of the presidents during my lifetime: (as a Liberal)
Eisenhower: Good things: Post war prosperity, Interstate Highway System. Bad things: Korean War, McCarthyism
Kennedy: Good things:? Bad things: Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis. Vietnam "advisors"
LBJ: Good things: Civil rights Act. Bad things: Vietnam War
Nixon: Good things: Ending Vietnam War, Wage and Price controls, Relations with China. Bad things: Dirty tricks, mostly for getting caught.
Ford: N/A
Carter: Good things:? Deregulation of all sorts of shiat. And making home brew legal.Bad things: bad at handling bad situations.
Reagan: Good things: ? Bad things: too long to mention.
Bush I: Good things: No Handled the fall of the Soviet Union in the best way possible. Reagan. Bad things:Iraq doublecross,war
Clinton: Good things: Rockefeller republican: Bad things: Same
Bush II: Good things:? Bad things, 2 pointless wars with tax cuts, bad treatment of Veterans.
Obama: Too soon to tell. Excluding from personal rankings.
So my top 2 presidents would be Clinton and Nixon.
Bottom 2 would be Kennedy and Bush II.
Rest are in the middle of the pack.
 
2013-08-26 03:15:39 PM  

simplicimus: Nixon: Good things: Ending Vietnam War, Wage and Price controls,


Wait. You think Wage and Price Controls was a GOOD thing?

Also, did you factor in HMOs and the mess of healthcare that resulted?
 
2013-08-26 03:15:49 PM  

Isitoveryet: our Commander in Chief


Are you in the military? If so, speak for yourself.
 
2013-08-26 03:15:55 PM  

Jackson Herring: I just realized that I lost the text file I had where I fartbama'd the names of every us president


AFAIC, that list starts and ends with "Fartchanan".

// [fart-cannon]
 
2013-08-26 03:16:54 PM  

give me doughnuts: Aristocles: sno man: Brick-House: and as for the GOP opposing breathing if the President came out in favor of respiration. Perhaps that says more about BOB's lack of leadership that anything else. Sorry, but BOB's blindness to everything except his socialists agenda is what is keeping this economy in the toilet. Speaking of which...

I should know better than to ask this of a guy that thinks the current President is a Marxist, so lets just consider this a rhetorical question.
Could you give a few examples of the socialists agenda of which you speak?  Keeping in mind that actual Socialism is about two jumps to the left of what we generally do in Canada, and that even your Democrats are typically to our right.

This one's too easy.

1) Government Motors
2) ObamaCare
3) Spread the wealth around


1) the Treasury is in the process of selling off the last of it's GM shares (currently about 18% of the common stock). After this sell-off, one of the single largest shareholders with be the Canadian government.

2) How is a huge money-maker for private insurers "socialism"?

3) That explains the huge tax increase on all income levels above $250,000 that...oh wait.

Three strikes.

You seem to be working from the position that Socialism is bad. Why?


Your statements regarding 1) and 2) miss the point that government shouldn't be intervening at all. As for 2), it's pretty obvious Obamacare is meant to fail in order for the democrats to attempt a full Socialist take-over of health-care in the U.S.

Number 3) is a verbatim quote from Obama.

The question called for "examples of the socialists agenda" luckily for us, the noble Republicans and T.E.A. Party Patriots have done all the can to prevent Obama's Socialist agenda.

To answer your question about Socialism being bad. I say "lolwut.jpg"

Socialism is not compatible with freedom, the belief in which is the central tenet of the United States of America (the greatest Nation to Bless the face of the Earth in all history).
 
2013-08-26 03:17:27 PM  

Aristocles: Zeppelininthesky: SkinnyHead: Yes.  He's in his fifth year now, and still hasn't lost his amateur status.

The do nothing president that is clueless and at the same time is evil and a dictator who forces his policies on everyone?

He's not a "do nothing" president. It's just that his ideas are bad and when he does something it's amateurish.


What ideas are amateurish? I seem to remember him passing bills to fix the mess Bush made of the economy, passing a healthcare measure that is based off of a Republican idea that actually worked, pulling us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, killing Bin Laden, and a few other things that are far from amateurish.
 
2013-08-26 03:20:44 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: pulling us out of Iraq and Afghanistan


The retreat from Iraq was scheduled before he got into office. And a troop surge in Afghanistan isn't exactly cutting and running.
 
2013-08-26 03:22:58 PM  

Aristocles: give me doughnuts: Aristocles: sno man: Brick-House: and as for the GOP opposing breathing if the President came out in favor of respiration. Perhaps that says more about BOB's lack of leadership that anything else. Sorry, but BOB's blindness to everything except his socialists agenda is what is keeping this economy in the toilet. Speaking of which...

I should know better than to ask this of a guy that thinks the current President is a Marxist, so lets just consider this a rhetorical question.
Could you give a few examples of the socialists agenda of which you speak?  Keeping in mind that actual Socialism is about two jumps to the left of what we generally do in Canada, and that even your Democrats are typically to our right.

This one's too easy.

1) Government Motors
2) ObamaCare
3) Spread the wealth around


1) the Treasury is in the process of selling off the last of it's GM shares (currently about 18% of the common stock). After this sell-off, one of the single largest shareholders with be the Canadian government.

2) How is a huge money-maker for private insurers "socialism"?

3) That explains the huge tax increase on all income levels above $250,000 that...oh wait.

Three strikes.

You seem to be working from the position that Socialism is bad. Why?

Your statements regarding 1) and 2) miss the point that government shouldn't be intervening at all. As for 2), it's pretty obvious Obamacare is meant to fail in order for the democrats to attempt a full Socialist take-over of health-care in the U.S.

Number 3) is a verbatim quote from Obama.

The question called for "examples of the socialists agenda" luckily for us, the noble Republicans and T.E.A. Party Patriots have done all the can to prevent Obama's Socialist agenda.

To answer your question about Socialism being bad. I say "lolwut.jpg"

Socialism is not compatible with freedom, the belief in which is the central tenet of the United States of America (the greatest Nation to Bless the face of the Earth in al ...


It seems as if you do not know the definition of Socialism. Hint: Giving stuff to people when they need it is not Socialism.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

If we take your definition of Socialism, the funding of roads, schools, water, police, fire companies, and other infrastructure expenses are Socialism. Hell, even *actual* Socialists do not consider Obama a Socialist.
 
2013-08-26 03:23:27 PM  

jigger: Isitoveryet: our Commander in Chief

Are you in the military? If so, speak for yourself.



you can't dictate reality simply because you don't like it.
Or are you one of those "he ain't my President, i didn't vote for him." patriots?
 
2013-08-26 03:24:12 PM  

jigger: Zeppelininthesky: pulling us out of Iraq and Afghanistan

The retreat from Iraq was scheduled before he got into office. And a troop surge in Afghanistan isn't exactly cutting and running.


Yes, I know. Who do you think actually made it a reality and not just a promise?
 
2013-08-26 03:26:35 PM  

Isitoveryet: What i would like to see is more Americans showing some support for our Commander in Chief & less making shiat up, pointing fingers, crying, scandals, obstruction & rape.


i always wish the Republicans had actually participated in this administration.


They participated in a way. If you count trying to fark it up in every way possible and then blaming Obama.
 
2013-08-26 03:27:42 PM  

Isitoveryet: jigger: Isitoveryet: our Commander in Chief

Are you in the military? If so, speak for yourself.


you can't dictate reality simply because you don't like it.
Or are you one of those "he ain't my President, i didn't vote for him." patriots?


Sir, if you're not in the military, the US president isn't your commander, sir.
 
2013-08-26 03:27:51 PM  

Mike_1962: Kennedy's domestic policy to a large extent was enacted after his death. His economic policies lead to one of the longest sustained growth periods the US economy has ever seen.
Bay of Pigs was inherited but, yes, he should have shut that stupidity down. Cuban missile crisis...go read a book. I know it's fashionable on the right wing to blame Kennedy, but the real situation wouras so confused and nuanced (sp?) I would challenge anyone to do better. Read a damned book instead of spouting currently popular talking points. Try getting away from "our team vs your team" and actually reading and thinking. Goddammn...


We're you alive at the time? I was. And I stated up front I was a liberal. Always have been. His domestic policy was enacted after his death because he didn't have the balls to do more than talk about it. And the missile crisis was a cold war misstep that could have been avoided.

BojanglesPaladin: simplicimus: Nixon: Good things: Ending Vietnam War, Wage and Price controls,

Wait. You think Wage and Price Controls was a GOOD thing?

Better than rampant inflation. Remember when grocery stores sold (properly labeled) horse meat because it was cheaper than beef?
 
2013-08-26 03:28:28 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: The current obstruction is the fault of the Republicans and ONLY the Republicans. How is Obama supposed to work with a Congress if the Congress is absolutely unwilling to work with him? Hell, the Republicans filibustered their own bill because they thought the Democrats would actually pass the bill. The Republicans have filibustered more bills than anyone in recent memory.


Zeppelininthesky: I seem to remember him passing bills to fix the mess Bush made of the economy, passing a healthcare measure that is based off of a Republican idea that actually worked, pulling us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, killing Bin Laden, and a few other things that are far from amateurish.


So when someone points out a problem with Obama, "it's the mean ol' repukes," but, when you approve of the government's actions, "Obama's far from amateurish, he's cleanin' up after Bushiatler"

Gotcha.

Your belief that economy is "fixed" is laughable. Obama's trial and error had America near double digit unemployment and Obama's strat: "throw money at it and maybe something will stick, don't worry about paying our debts, in the long run, we'll all be dead!" Citing Obamacare as a "plus" for Obama is also a joke considering all the exemptions and delays of it's implementation. If it's such a great law, how come no one wants to participate and why not enforce it in it's entirety right now?

I'll tell ya why, cuz it's not viable.
 
2013-08-26 03:28:50 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: jigger: Zeppelininthesky: pulling us out of Iraq and Afghanistan

The retreat from Iraq was scheduled before he got into office. And a troop surge in Afghanistan isn't exactly cutting and running.

Yes, I know. Who do you think actually made it a reality and not just a promise?


Nouri al-Maliki?

The withdrawal from Iraq wasn't exactly the US's first choice.
 
2013-08-26 03:29:48 PM  

ManateeGag: LordZorch: bwilson27: He's the blackest president ever, that's for sure.
Is that what they mean?

No

But go on believing that's why people hate him if you can't actually understand that skin color has zero to do with it.

so you're telling me that NO ONE hates the president solely because he has a darker skin tone than they do?  then can you explain the "Obama Bucks" with kool-aide and watermellon on it?  Or the PS of a watermellon patch on the white house lawn?  or the pictures of Obama dresses up as a witch doctor?  Those things have nothing to do with race?


my personal favorite:
eurweb.zippykid.netdna-cdn.com

But don't you EVER try to say it's about race!
 
2013-08-26 03:32:28 PM  

Aristocles: Zeppelininthesky: The current obstruction is the fault of the Republicans and ONLY the Republicans. How is Obama supposed to work with a Congress if the Congress is absolutely unwilling to work with him? Hell, the Republicans filibustered their own bill because they thought the Democrats would actually pass the bill. The Republicans have filibustered more bills than anyone in recent memory.

Zeppelininthesky: I seem to remember him passing bills to fix the mess Bush made of the economy, passing a healthcare measure that is based off of a Republican idea that actually worked, pulling us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, killing Bin Laden, and a few other things that are far from amateurish.

So when someone points out a problem with Obama, "it's the mean ol' repukes," but, when you approve of the government's actions, "Obama's far from amateurish, he's cleanin' up after Bushiatler"

Gotcha.

Your belief that economy is "fixed" is laughable. Obama's trial and error had America near double digit unemployment and Obama's strat: "throw money at it and maybe something will stick, don't worry about paying our debts, in the long run, we'll all be dead!" Citing Obamacare as a "plus" for Obama is also a joke considering all the exemptions and delays of it's implementation. If it's such a great law, how come no one wants to participate and why not enforce it in it's entirety right now?

I'll tell ya why, cuz it's not viable.


I am blaming the Republicans because it is their fault. 

You are saying that the economy is not better now than when it was before Obama took over? It is as if you no nothing about the economy.

"Obamacare" is only delayed because the Republicans want it delayed.
 
2013-08-26 03:34:02 PM  

jigger: Isitoveryet: jigger: Isitoveryet: our Commander in Chief

Are you in the military? If so, speak for yourself.


you can't dictate reality simply because you don't like it.
Or are you one of those "he ain't my President, i didn't vote for him." patriots?

Sir, if you're not in the military, the US president isn't your commander, sir.


thank you for the correction.
 
2013-08-26 03:41:41 PM  

simplicimus: Better than rampant inflation.

Remember when grocery stores sold (properly labeled) horse meat because it was cheaper than beef?

I do. But there is not an either/or dynamic here, and as we have seen since, there are better methods. I think it was pretty well demonstrated that Nixon's efforts to curb inflation by wage and price controls were the WRONG way to fix the issues. Which is why they have been largely abandoned as an economic tool.

Based on some of your criteria, it seems you may lean toward a more centralized and active governance of the economy, and that may be why you would favor something like wage and price controls in principle, but in practice, they tend to create more problems through bureaucracy and secondary consequences than they promise to fix.
 
2013-08-26 03:43:57 PM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: But don't you EVER try to say it's about race!


It may well be about race for some people.

But race has nothing to do with the criticisms of Obama's policies for most people.

And proving that SOME people don't like Obama based on race is not a counter argument against people who don't like Obama for his policies or performance.
 
2013-08-26 03:44:57 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: I am blaming the Republicans because it is their fault.

You are saying that the economy is not better now than when it was before Obama took over? It is as if you no nothing about the economy.

"Obamacare" is only delayed because the Republicans want it delayed.


1) So you don't think Obama and the democrats have anything to do with political stalemate?

2) While I do hold that the economy is worse now than when Obama seized power, that's not what I was saying. I was still addressing the issue, namely, Obama's amateurish moves. I pointed out that due to his economic "plan" we saw near double digit unemployment, hence the accusation of "amateur."

3) Republicans don't want Obamacare at all. But the delays and exemptions are being handed out to Obama's cronies by democrats.
 
2013-08-26 03:51:08 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: simplicimus: Better than rampant inflation. Remember when grocery stores sold (properly labeled) horse meat because it was cheaper than beef?

I do. But there is not an either/or dynamic here, and as we have seen since, there are better methods. I think it was pretty well demonstrated that Nixon's efforts to curb inflation by wage and price controls were the WRONG way to fix the issues. Which is why they have been largely abandoned as an economic tool.

Based on some of your criteria, it seems you may lean toward a more centralized and active governance of the economy, and that may be why you would favor something like wage and price controls in principle, but in practice, they tend to create more problems through bureaucracy and secondary consequences than they promise to fix.


Perhaps I do lean that way, but the other path (to me) always leads to economically groundless bubbles and the eventual following burst and recession.
 
2013-08-26 03:52:54 PM  

Aristocles: 1) So you don't think Obama and the democrats have anything to do with political stalemate?


of course, they should just the Republicans everything they want.  if they were just reasonable and did everything they were told, there wouldn't be any problems.
 
2013-08-26 03:55:53 PM  

Brick-House: DeaH: "Is he worst, yet?"

"No."

"Is he worst, yet?"

"No."

"Is he worst, yet?"

"No."

"Is he worst, yet?"

"No."

"Is he worst, yet?"

"No."


Is he worst yet?

[510x298 from http://www.hyscience.com/what-difference-does-it-make-meme-generator-w hat-difference-does-it-make-ee8d52_zps7f4cd1051.jpg image 510x298]


WOOP WOOP WOOP! WINNER WINNER SEXY CHICKEN DINNER!
YOU IMPLIED THE SECRET WORD*!!!


HERES YOUR PRIZE!


Be sure to play this song while enjoying your prize!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWjeITmDmmo
leavemetheoink.files.wordpress.com

Remember, keep farking that chicken!


*The Secret word was Benghazi
 
2013-08-26 04:01:35 PM  

Heliovdrake: Brick-House: DeaH: "Is he worst, yet?"

"No."

"Is he worst, yet?"

"No."

"Is he worst, yet?"

"No."

"Is he worst, yet?"

"No."

"Is he worst, yet?"

"No."


Is he worst yet?

[510x298 from http://www.hyscience.com/what-difference-does-it-make-meme-generator-w hat-difference-does-it-make-ee8d52_zps7f4cd1051.jpg image 510x298]

WOOP WOOP WOOP! WINNER WINNER SEXY CHICKEN DINNER!
YOU IMPLIED THE SECRET WORD*!!!


HERES YOUR PRIZE!

Be sure to play this song while enjoying your prize!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWjeITmDmmo
[700x467 from http://leavemetheoink.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/chicken-1.jpg image 700x467]

Remember, keep farking that chicken!


*The Secret word was Benghazi


This guy would have found that to be pretty funny, if he wern't dead.

t1.gstatic.com
 
2013-08-26 04:04:27 PM  

Brick-House: Heliovdrake: Brick-House: DeaH: "Is he worst, yet?"

"No."

"Is he worst, yet?"

"No."

"Is he worst, yet?"

"No."

"Is he worst, yet?"

"No."

"Is he worst, yet?"

"No."


Is he worst yet?

[510x298 from http://www.hyscience.com/what-difference-does-it-make-meme-generator-w hat-difference-does-it-make-ee8d52_zps7f4cd1051.jpg image 510x298]

WOOP WOOP WOOP! WINNER WINNER SEXY CHICKEN DINNER!
YOU IMPLIED THE SECRET WORD*!!!


HERES YOUR PRIZE!

Be sure to play this song while enjoying your prize!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWjeITmDmmo
[700x467 from http://leavemetheoink.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/chicken-1.jpg image 700x467]

Remember, keep farking that chicken!


*The Secret word was Benghazi

This guy would have found that to be pretty funny, if he wern't dead.

[275x183 from http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRQ9OCnYzTTeRQ43L43k8DYNLt6HC_ JinoV7jdd22eAWUj1_BbY_Q image 275x183]


I'm not making fun of the dead, I'm making fun of you, who are using the dead as a political prop in a debunked scandal that never was a scandal that all.
 
2013-08-26 04:09:59 PM  

simplicimus: Perhaps I do lean that way, but the other path (to me) always leads to economically groundless bubbles and the eventual following burst and recession.


We agree that there is an inherent flaw in the uncontrolled "boom and bust" model of the modern 'free market'. But I consider it effectively proven (By both Nixon and many European Countries) that arbitrary wage and price controls is not the way to go about it.

Personally, I think that tools like Glass Steagall are more effective. The erosion of Glass Steagall under Reagan and Clinton and it's final repeal prove this to my mind by seeing the subsequent accelerated boom and busts.

Also, while imperfect and unwieldy, government subsidies can potentially provide directional control of market prices without the damaging effects of price controls.

Anywho, I would put Nixon's Price and Wage Controls in the negative column, and add HMOs to the negative as well.
 
2013-08-26 04:21:56 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Anywho, I would put Nixon's Price and Wage Controls in the negative column, and add HMOs to the negative as well.


Well, they seemed like the best idea at the time. In the long run, you are probably right.
 
2013-08-26 04:23:24 PM  

Dr Dreidel: AFAIC, that list starts and ends with "Fartchanan".


you're welcome for that one
 
2013-08-26 04:55:36 PM  
content.washingtonexaminer.biz.s3.amazonaws.com
No really. That's the author. He really looks like that.
 
2013-08-26 05:04:14 PM  

Heliovdrake: I'm not making fun of the dead, I'm making fun of you, who are using the dead as a political prop in a debunked scandal that never was a scandal that all.


I must have missed the news on this. So can you tell me how exactly a scandal that never really was a scandal was exactly debunked?  And BOB saying that it's a phony scandal doesn't count.
 
2013-08-26 05:07:51 PM  

Brick-House: Heliovdrake: I'm not making fun of the dead, I'm making fun of you, who are using the dead as a political prop in a debunked scandal that never was a scandal that all.

I must have missed the news on this. So can you tell me how exactly a scandal that never really was a scandal was exactly debunked?  And BOB saying that it's a phony scandal doesn't count.


You already know, you have been in the majority of the previous Benghazi threads on fark, don't play dumb.

Oh wait.
 
2013-08-26 05:09:58 PM  

simplicimus: Well, they seemed like the best idea at the time.


Even at the time, a lot of people were (very correctly) saying it was a terrible idea, and that wasn't how you fix the economy. Same thing with the HMO legislation, where some people warned that it would create bureaucracy and price escalation. But Nixon was always very big on autocratic behavior.

Some of this starts sounding familiar. A lot of Obama's critics say that he is Carter redux. I sometimes wonder if he's not a sort of Nixon Two: Executive Bugaloo.

Or maybe both. A bit of Carter's well meaning amateur hour ineptitude, a dose of Nixon's executive arrogance and antagonism toward critics and opponents. Throw in an economy in the disrepair and a rabid opposition determined to see his downfall, and ...VIOLA! Terrible Presidency.

What makes a bad President is rarely that they are a bad person. Sometimes you have the wrong person, but sometimes you just have the right person for the wrong time. I think Obama had the potential to have been a transformative president, but he had the wrong set of personality and tools for the economic and political environment of 2008.
 
2013-08-26 05:18:51 PM  

ManateeGag: Aristocles: 1) So you don't think Obama and the democrats have anything to do with political stalemate?

of course, they should just the Republicans everything they want.  if they were just reasonable and did everything they were told, there wouldn't be any problems.


No, they should work in good faith with Republicans who want nothing but to help put this Country back on it's feet again.

Obama and the democrats drove this country off a cliff! And now they want the keys back?!
 
2013-08-26 05:19:39 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: simplicimus: Well, they seemed like the best idea at the time.

Even at the time, a lot of people were (very correctly) saying it was a terrible idea, and that wasn't how you fix the economy. Same thing with the HMO legislation, where some people warned that it would create bureaucracy and price escalation. But Nixon was always very big on autocratic behavior.

Some of this starts sounding familiar. A lot of Obama's critics say that he is Carter redux. I sometimes wonder if he's not a sort of Nixon Two: Executive Bugaloo.

Or maybe both. A bit of Carter's well meaning amateur hour ineptitude, a dose of Nixon's executive arrogance and antagonism toward critics and opponents. Throw in an economy in the disrepair and a rabid opposition determined to see his downfall, and ...VIOLA! Terrible Presidency.

What makes a bad President is rarely that they are a bad person. Sometimes you have the wrong person, but sometimes you just have the right person for the wrong time. I think Obama had the potential to have been a transformative president, but he had the wrong set of personality and tools for the economic and political environment of 2008.


See folks this is how you concern troll.
 
2013-08-26 05:21:26 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: simplicimus: Well, they seemed like the best idea at the time.

Even at the time, a lot of people were (very correctly) saying it was a terrible idea, and that wasn't how you fix the economy. Same thing with the HMO legislation, where some people warned that it would create bureaucracy and price escalation. But Nixon was always very big on autocratic behavior.

Some of this starts sounding familiar. A lot of Obama's critics say that he is Carter redux. I sometimes wonder if he's not a sort of Nixon Two: Executive Bugaloo.

Or maybe both. A bit of Carter's well meaning amateur hour ineptitude, a dose of Nixon's executive arrogance and antagonism toward critics and opponents. Throw in an economy in the disrepair and a rabid opposition determined to see his downfall, and ...VIOLA! Terrible Presidency.

What makes a bad President is rarely that they are a bad person. Sometimes you have the wrong person, but sometimes you just have the right person for the wrong time. I think Obama had the potential to have been a transformative president, but he had the wrong set of personality and tools for the economic and political environment of 2008.


He's a more hubristic Nixon without the education and with far too many dangerous tools.

Carter seems like a good guy. Not Presidential material, but a good guy.
 
2013-08-26 05:37:35 PM  

Aristocles: He's a more hubristic Nixon without the education and with far too many dangerous tools.


I would not go that far. Nixon pretty much holds the title for most hubris.

As far as Education, I think Obama has better "paper", but they both have Law Degrees from respected Universities. Obviously, Nixon had more actual experience.

Anyway, I am not directly comparing the two, simply pointing out that Obama seems to share a few of the same flaws. Not all of course. I don't think Obama shares Nixon's deep distrust and paranoia for instance.

And I agree that Carter was a good guy, but I think in a different time, in different circumstances he may have been a stellar president. However, (like Obama), he seemed to lack the chops to navigate turbulent times and impossible situations.
 
2013-08-26 05:48:05 PM  
Ah, a fart-sniffing Ouroboros.
 
2013-08-26 05:50:15 PM  

Mike_1962: Kennedy's domestic policy to a large extent was enacted after his death. His economic policies lead to one of the longest sustained growth periods the US economy has ever seen.


Kennedy: Good thing: Through his strong support of the Apollo program, (granted it was at least partially fueled by fear of commies), helped to inspire American parents and their children to give two shiats about science education for a decade, sparking a golden age in technology development that's lasted both of those generations.
 
2013-08-26 06:01:13 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Aristocles: He's a more hubristic Nixon without the education and with far too many dangerous tools.

I would not go that far. Nixon pretty much holds the title for most hubris.

As far as Education, I think Obama has better "paper", but they both have Law Degrees from respected Universities. Obviously, Nixon had more actual experience.

Anyway, I am not directly comparing the two, simply pointing out that Obama seems to share a few of the same flaws. Not all of course. I don't think Obama shares Nixon's deep distrust and paranoia for instance.

And I agree that Carter was a good guy, but I think in a different time, in different circumstances he may have been a stellar president. However, (like Obama), he seemed to lack the chops to navigate turbulent times and impossible situations.


Sadly, that "paper" doesn't mean as much as it once did.

As far as distrust and paranoia go, Nixon was terrible at hiding it. Being a politician these days means that you have to be able to act, and Obama is a master at this when he's had ample time to prepare. Nixon on the other hand, couldn't "act" to save his life, e.g. his shifty eyes and sweating during debates with JFK.

Obama and/or his team is probably just as distrusting and paranoid as Nixon. Sending the IRS after opponents, lying about Fast and Furious, Benghazi, spying on journalists, not to mention propaganda campaigns like Fight the Smears.

Obama has a JFK-esque demagogic swagger, but he uses Nixonian tactics to attack his enemies and cover up his messes.
 
2013-08-26 06:11:48 PM  

Aristocles: Obama and/or his team is probably just as distrusting and paranoid as Nixon.


I don't have any knowledge or evidence to that effect. Frankly they seem to be way to cocksure to be paranoid.

Aristocles: he uses Nixonian tactics to attack his enemies and cover up his messes.


I think the correct terminology is "Chicago politics style" different dirty tricks toolbags.

I don't think Obama is Nixon, and not really Nixonian. I think that he shares some of the fatal flaws that Nixon had that made him a poor president.

I will further clarify by saying that whereas Nixon's flaws were deep and inherent, I think that Obama's are the result of inexperience and a lack of overall maturity. Meaning that the too-soon Presidency may have solidified some unfortunate traits that would have otherwise been refined out.
 
2013-08-26 06:13:52 PM  

Aristocles: Zeppelininthesky: I am blaming the Republicans because it is their fault.

You are saying that the economy is not better now than when it was before Obama took over? It is as if you no nothing about the economy.

"Obamacare" is only delayed because the Republicans want it delayed.

1) So you don't think Obama and the democrats have anything to do with political stalemate?

2) While I do hold that the economy is worse now than when Obama seized power, that's not what I was saying. I was still addressing the issue, namely, Obama's amateurish moves. I pointed out that due to his economic "plan" we saw near double digit unemployment, hence the accusation of "amateur."

3) Republicans don't want Obamacare at all. But the delays and exemptions are being handed out to Obama's cronies by democrats.


The stalemate is because the Republicans want to defund the ACA, or shut down the government. That is, as far as I am concerned, amateurish. The Republicans are doing it all for spite. Tell me this, what would the Republicans replace with the ACA? They spent MILLIONS of dollars on trying to repeal the ACA. They know the repeal will fail. Talk about a waste of money.

Do you think that Obama can snap his fingers and the economy will just be fixed? Things take time to recover, and if the Republicans would not keep filibustering EVER SINGLE bill that is focused on fixing the economy, things would be much better.

Timelines for the ACA are tight. The Republicans are jumping on this as a "failure", when in reality it is fine.
 
2013-08-26 06:16:14 PM  

Aristocles: ManateeGag: Aristocles: 1) So you don't think Obama and the democrats have anything to do with political stalemate?

of course, they should just the Republicans everything they want.  if they were just reasonable and did everything they were told, there wouldn't be any problems.

No, they should work in good faith with Republicans who want nothing but to help put this Country back on it's feet again.

Obama and the democrats drove this country off a cliff! And now they want the keys back?!


Oh wait, your're serious. Let me laugh harder.

Please show me exactly what Obama and the Democrats did to drive this country off a cliff?
 
2013-08-26 06:17:35 PM  
FiveThirtyEight had Obama ranked 17th.
 
2013-08-26 06:17:56 PM  

Aristocles: BojanglesPaladin: Aristocles: He's a more hubristic Nixon without the education and with far too many dangerous tools.

I would not go that far. Nixon pretty much holds the title for most hubris.

As far as Education, I think Obama has better "paper", but they both have Law Degrees from respected Universities. Obviously, Nixon had more actual experience.

Anyway, I am not directly comparing the two, simply pointing out that Obama seems to share a few of the same flaws. Not all of course. I don't think Obama shares Nixon's deep distrust and paranoia for instance.

And I agree that Carter was a good guy, but I think in a different time, in different circumstances he may have been a stellar president. However, (like Obama), he seemed to lack the chops to navigate turbulent times and impossible situations.

Sadly, that "paper" doesn't mean as much as it once did.

As far as distrust and paranoia go, Nixon was terrible at hiding it. Being a politician these days means that you have to be able to act, and Obama is a master at this when he's had ample time to prepare. Nixon on the other hand, couldn't "act" to save his life, e.g. his shifty eyes and sweating during debates with JFK.

Obama and/or his team is probably just as distrusting and paranoid as Nixon. Sending the IRS after opponents, lying about Fast and Furious, Benghazi, spying on journalists, not to mention propaganda campaigns like Fight the Smears.

Obama has a JFK-esque demagogic swagger, but he uses Nixonian tactics to attack his enemies and cover up his messes.


Please wake me when your side finds an *actual* scandal by Obama.
 
2013-08-26 06:21:40 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Aristocles: Obama and/or his team is probably just as distrusting and paranoid as Nixon.

I don't have any knowledge or evidence to that effect. Frankly they seem to be way to cocksure to be paranoid.

Aristocles: he uses Nixonian tactics to attack his enemies and cover up his messes.

I think the correct terminology is "Chicago politics style" different dirty tricks toolbags.

I don't think Obama is Nixon, and not really Nixonian. I think that he shares some of the fatal flaws that Nixon had that made him a poor president.

I will further clarify by saying that whereas Nixon's flaws were deep and inherent, I think that Obama's are the result of inexperience and a lack of overall maturity. Meaning that the too-soon Presidency may have solidified some unfortunate traits that would have otherwise been refined out.


Oh, to be sure, it was too soon. President Obama nearly perfected acting the part of president and there's no doubt he inspired many voters. Yet he seemed not to have even tried to actually participate in government, for example, all we know is that he was "present" during his tenure as state senator. He didn't make much of an impact as U.S. Senator, either, typically he just toed the party line. Before being elected President, Obama hadn't made much of an impact at all, but boy could he move a crowd.
 
2013-08-26 06:26:35 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: It's almost as if someone is cherry-picking data and blaming long-term trends on Obama.


Eh, same type of guy who says that ebil gubmint surveillance has only gotten worse "within the past 5 years".

/Specifically, since Jan 20, 2009.
 
2013-08-26 06:26:41 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: The stalemate is because the Republicans want to defund the ACA, or shut down the government.


whynotboth.jpg
 
2013-08-26 06:26:47 PM  
Is anyone else getting the feeling that someone here is having a conversation with themselves?
 
Displayed 50 of 294 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report