President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[The_Noble_Cause]

http://conservabuzz.com/sometimes-you-have-to-admit-when-youre-wrong-a-stunning-admission-from-one-newspaper/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=fbpage&utm_campaign=cbupdate

That's just begging for a c&p...

A newspaper in Billings, Montana, has finally done something we’ve wished Democrats would do for five years: apologized for supporting Barack Obama.

The Billings Gazette was notorious for its criticisms of the Bush administration during the early 2000s, so it was little surprise to anyone when they formally endorsed Barack Obama in 2008. Now, though, they’re formally recanting that decision, and even apologizing to their readers for such poor judgment.

The Gazette‘s editorial board colorfully noted:


"We said that things couldn’t get much worse after the sub par presidency of George W. Bush.

But, President Barack Obama’s administration has us yearning for the good ol’ days when we were at least winning battles in Iraq."
After that damning opening line, the board gave a rundown of pretty much every other major failure of the Obama presidency, from Bowe Bergdahl to the VA. (Side note: we at Conservabuzz feel it says a lot about a president’s qualifications – or lack thereof – when his administration has a different scandal for almost every letter of the alphabet.)

As the Gazette points out, bad polling numbers don’t always indicate a poor presidency. But in Obama’s case, every one of those bad reports is fairly earned.

The fact that they claim we were "winning Iraq" under Bush, tells me this rag has as much credibility as Mad magazine. The violence only stopped when Muqtada called a ceasefire.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Fact Finder, wouldn't you say that was very Alynski type of remark TNC posted?

There ya go. One liar asking another liar to confirm their lies. I guess that's how right wingers engage in fact checking, huh?

I'm simply posting that SOME liberals can learn, TNC jumped in to prove most can't. I thought this was a forum.

And you know that a newspaper out of red state Montana & red state Wyoming is liberal just how exactly? If the op-ed page is nostalgically pining for the good ole days of the Fallujah massacre and Abu Ghraib, it tells me they are not conservative, but fucking insane! Why don't you man up, KC, and stop being a sniveling cowardly little bitch, and address your debunked Iraq articles. I read the Inquistr article. Every link in there claims that Saddam's weapons programs were defunct. You obviously didn't read anything beyond the hit-gathering sensational headline. The ghost of William F. Buckley wouldn't even take an ectoplasmic shit on you. You are a disgrace to the Conservative movement.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Is that the best you got? You do realize the op in op-ed stands for opinion, right? Do you know what an opinion is, gullible shit kicker? It's not the same thing as saying your momma is the town whore. See, that would be a fact.Here's a new idea...why don't you post some facts? Such as George W Bush's autobiography, wherein he states they found no WMD and he regrets it. What was your response to that? It's an old book. Meanwhile everything you have posted is relying on old CIA data. You're not a conservative, just a fucking moron. Stop relying on Dan to do your homework. He obviously can't read either.

[JBlake]

U.S. poll: more voters see Obama as worst president in modern times

Reuters via Yahoo

July 2, 2014


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two years into President Barack Obama's second term, more voters say they are dissatisfied with his administration's handling of everything from the economy to foreign policy, giving him the worst marks of any modern U.S. president, a poll on Wednesday said.

In a survey of 1,446 registered voters, 33 percent said Obama was the worst president since World War Two, while 28 percent pointed to his predecessor, George W. Bush, as the worst, the poll by Quinnipiac University found.

Voters were split over which of the two most recent presidents has done a better job with 39 percent saying Obama has been a better president than Bush and, 40 percent saying Obama is worse.

Most voters said Ronald Reagan, who served two terms in the 1980s, was the best president since 1945, the survey showed.

"Over the span of 69 years of American history and 12 presidencies, President Barack Obama finds himself with President George W. Bush at the bottom of the popularity barrel," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of Quinnipiac University's polling unit.

While Obama's job approval rating has inched higher to 40 percent, up from 38 percent in December, more voters gave him largely negative marks in key areas: the economy, foreign policy, healthcare and terrorism, according to the poll.

How many people in America had even heard of Obama two years before the 2009 election? My guess is at least 95% of the average America citizen who votes did not. Yet he won the election that year. Seems they voted for him based on his color and political preference and not because of a proven track record in political accomplishments and experience.

And this is why we have the issues today with this president and the state of this country. From day one this guy seems to be a complete failure. Literally. Remember all those shovel-ready jobs he was talking about early on? Was those jobs the staff build-up for the IRS to target republicans, NSA to target American's communications, VA targeting American veterans who they will and will not assist?

When Bush was president the only issues were conspiracy type theories such as Bush being behind 9-11 and WMD just a ploy to go to war with Iraq, even Bush ordering crowd control in the form of the military causing it to rain.

What's everyone's take on it?

[The_Noble_Cause]

When Bush was president the only issues were conspiracy type theories such as Bush being behind 9-11 and WMD just a ploy to go to war with Iraq, even Bush ordering crowd control in the form of the military causing it to rain.

What's everyone's take on it?

I think, if you believe those were the only issues during the Bush administration, you really shouldn't be talking about politics. If a majority of voters only voted for Obama because he's black, it would appear you only started to follow the news when a black president got elected. Go back to your coma.

[JBlake]

When Bush was president the only issues were conspiracy type theories such as Bush being behind 9-11 and WMD just a ploy to go to war with Iraq, even Bush ordering crowd control in the form of the military causing it to rain.

What's everyone's take on it?

I think, if you believe those were the only issues during the Bush administration, you really shouldn't be talking about politics. If a majority of voters only voted for Obama because he's black, it would appear you only started to follow the news when a black president got elected. Go back to your coma.

Why else would anyone vote for someone who've they've never heard of just a year or two before an election and who's only plan is based solely on two words: "Hope & Change"?

What other issues besides "9-11 Inside job" and "WMD" during the Bush years were there?

[The_Noble_Cause]

Why else would anyone vote for someone who've they've never heard of just a year or two before an election and who's only plan is based solely on two words: "Hope & Change"?

In a two party system, the new guy seemed alot more presidential than the cranky McCain. I didn't vote for Obama based on his skin color. If McCain was black and Obama was white, would McCain have won?

What other issues besides "9-11 Inside job" and "WMD" during the Bush years were there?

Ok, ur obviously taking the piss here. Thanks for the laugh.

[JBlake]

If McCain was black and Obama was white, would McCain have won?

Isn't that sort of like asking: "If your sister had been born with a set of balls, would she have been a better quarter back then say Joe Namath"?

[slucero]

U.S. poll: more voters see Obama as worst president in modern times

Reuters via Yahoo

July 2, 2014


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two years into President Barack Obama's second term, more voters say they are dissatisfied with his administration's handling of everything from the economy to foreign policy, giving him the worst marks of any modern U.S. president, a poll on Wednesday said.

In a survey of 1,446 registered voters, 33 percent said Obama was the worst president since World War Two, while 28 percent pointed to his predecessor, George W. Bush, as the worst, the poll by Quinnipiac University found.

Voters were split over which of the two most recent presidents has done a better job with 39 percent saying Obama has been a better president than Bush and, 40 percent saying Obama is worse.

Most voters said Ronald Reagan, who served two terms in the 1980s, was the best president since 1945, the survey showed.

"Over the span of 69 years of American history and 12 presidencies, President Barack Obama finds himself with President George W. Bush at the bottom of the popularity barrel," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of Quinnipiac University's polling unit.

While Obama's job approval rating has inched higher to 40 percent, up from 38 percent in December, more voters gave him largely negative marks in key areas: the economy, foreign policy, healthcare and terrorism, according to the poll.

How many people in America had even heard of Obama two years before the 2009 election? My guess is at least 95% of the average America citizen who votes did not. Yet he won the election that year. Seems they voted for him based on his color and political preference and not because of a proven track record in political accomplishments and experience.

And this is why we have the issues today with this president and the state of this country. From day one this guy seems to be a complete failure. Literally. Remember all those shovel-ready jobs he was talking about early on? Was those jobs the staff build-up for the IRS to target republicans, NSA to target American's communications, VA targeting American veterans who they will and will not assist?

When Bush was president the only issues were conspiracy type theories such as Bush being behind 9-11 and WMD just a ploy to go to war with Iraq, even Bush ordering crowd control in the form of the military causing it to rain.

What's everyone's take on it?

in fairness.. Bush signed into law the Patriot Act.. the most successful freedom stripping law in the last 100 years.. and Obama, who said he'd repeal it.. has actually strengthened it under the guise of reforming it....

But Obama's failure is actually a lot more simple than that...

Obama promised "change"... and the kind of change he delivered isn't what people expected... because in the end it's still about the economy.

[JBlake]

U.S. poll: more voters see Obama as worst president in modern times

Reuters via Yahoo

July 2, 2014


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two years into President Barack Obama's second term, more voters say they are dissatisfied with his administration's handling of everything from the economy to foreign policy, giving him the worst marks of any modern U.S. president, a poll on Wednesday said.

In a survey of 1,446 registered voters, 33 percent said Obama was the worst president since World War Two, while 28 percent pointed to his predecessor, George W. Bush, as the worst, the poll by Quinnipiac University found.

Voters were split over which of the two most recent presidents has done a better job with 39 percent saying Obama has been a better president than Bush and, 40 percent saying Obama is worse.

Most voters said Ronald Reagan, who served two terms in the 1980s, was the best president since 1945, the survey showed.

"Over the span of 69 years of American history and 12 presidencies, President Barack Obama finds himself with President George W. Bush at the bottom of the popularity barrel," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of Quinnipiac University's polling unit.

While Obama's job approval rating has inched higher to 40 percent, up from 38 percent in December, more voters gave him largely negative marks in key areas: the economy, foreign policy, healthcare and terrorism, according to the poll.

How many people in America had even heard of Obama two years before the 2009 election? My guess is at least 95% of the average America citizen who votes did not. Yet he won the election that year. Seems they voted for him based on his color and political preference and not because of a proven track record in political accomplishments and experience.

And this is why we have the issues today with this president and the state of this country. From day one this guy seems to be a complete failure. Literally. Remember all those shovel-ready jobs he was talking about early on? Was those jobs the staff build-up for the IRS to target republicans, NSA to target American's communications, VA targeting American veterans who they will and will not assist?

When Bush was president the only issues were conspiracy type theories such as Bush being behind 9-11 and WMD just a ploy to go to war with Iraq, even Bush ordering crowd control in the form of the military causing it to rain.

What's everyone's take on it?

in fairness.. Bush signed into law the Patriot Act.. the most successful freedom stripping law in the last 100 years.. and Obama, who said he'd repeal it.. has actually strengthened it under the guise of reforming it....

But Obama's failure is actually a lot more simple than that...

Obama promised "change"... and the kind of change he delivered isn't what people expected..

Actually....it may have been exactly what they wanted. For the most part anyways. Remember who his base voters are. I think what we are seeing now is a lot of Democrats will start to distance themselves from him only because they want to try and get elected into office. Interestingly enough, I've not been aware of any democrats seeking Obama's endorsement. If this is true, my next question is why do you think this is the situation?

[The_Noble_Cause]

If McCain was black and Obama was white, would McCain have won?

Isn't that sort of like asking: "If your sister had been born with a set of balls, would she have been a better quarter back then say Joe Namath"?

You claim that O won due to race. The scenario I put forward suggests, that is not the decisive factor. McCain could have been black, green, or purple. Once the economy crashed, the GOP was done in 08. Have the GOP put up Herman Cain or Dr. Carson against Hillary, and then we'll talk.

[Monker]

If McCain was black and Obama was white, would McCain have won?

Isn't that sort of like asking: "If your sister had been born with a set of balls, would she have been a better quarter back then say Joe Namath"?

No it's not. It's asking a real question.

My answer is, no, McCain would have still lost. McCain made a lot of mistakes. He found a ditz for a running mate. He was arguing with his own supporters when they were going all loopy at his rallies and attacking Obama. He said, "the fundamentals of the economy are sound," when they obviously were not. A few weeks after he said that, HE called an emergency economic meeting with himself, Obama, and W. Obama had a sense of the issues...because he had been researching them long before this meeting. McCain seemed like a senile old man with nothing to say at a meeting HE CALLED FOR. Even W said he was going to have trouble voting for McCain.

THAT is why he lost...not because of the skin color of either man.

[verslibre]

McCain made a lot of mistakes. He found a ditz for a running mate.

Without a doubt. He went from sixty to zero by doing that.

Obama had a sense of the issues...because he had been researching them long before this meeting.

Regardless, he's lost the plot. This administration has a rep for being the laziest one ever. A lot of talkin' and not much walkin.'

TH-TH-TH-TH-TH-THAT'S ALL, FOLKS!

[Boomchild]

in fairness.. Bush signed into law the Patriot Act.. the most successful freedom stripping law in the last 100 years.. and Obama, who said he'd repeal it.. has actually strengthened it under the guise of reforming it....

But Obama's failure is actually a lot more simple than that...

Obama promised "change"... and the kind of change he delivered isn't what people expected... because in the end it's still about the economy.

Speaking of B.O.'s campaign promises, here's a refresher:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz0ZK8y ... mi2kzAjqRA

[The_Noble_Cause]

I clearly stated that I was posting for Dan, and TNC ripped me. How stupid is that?

No, you said "Something else from Dan to attack the source." That's a quote, so don't try to go back and edit your post. Do you know the difference between "FROM Dan" and "FOR Dan", dumbshit? You're about as clear as my windshield after a Times Square urchin wipes his piss soaked rag across it. I would just stop posting, dude. You can't type anything without making a fucking clown of yourself.

[Monker]

Monker wrote:
Obama had a sense of the issues...because he had been researching them long before this meeting.

His comprehension of the issues leaves a lot to be desired.

What a bunch of crap. Obama understood how bad the economy truly was and government intervention was not just needed but it was critical to do NOW to avoid a total collapse of the economy worse than the great depression. Bailing out Wallstreet and the auto industry was absolutely needed. He had a grasp of how urgent and critical the situation truly was...while McCain was a total dope and knew nothing and how no ideas on what to do.

THAT is why McCain lost. Deal with it.

As for the rest of it, the "hope and change" that didn't happen "argument". It's impossible to change something that doesn't want to or embrace change. Congress not only would not change but the Republicans adopted a policy that if the President wanted it, they were going to be against no matter what. The congress Obama has had to deal with has been the most obstructive congress in the history of our nation...due to politics. As I have said in the past, the Republicans have put politics in priority in front of the needs of this nation. They are no better than Bergdahl because they also turn their backs on their elected duty and betrayed their country.

[Monker]

Not just Monker, FF. I clearly stated that I was posting for Dan, and TNC ripped me. How stupid is that?

WHATEVER.

You are insane...repeating the same crap over and over again. This was originally talked about 10yrs ago and all of this WMD was dismissed as degraded and useless. Sarin degrades and becomes useless VERY QUICKLY..withing months. This isn't opinion...it's FACT...look it up. You are talking about chemicals created in the 1980's as if they are viable. They are NOT. For Saddam to have any chemical weapons prior to W's war, he would have had to keep his weapons program active by repairing the bombed out factory, or building a new one. NONE OF THAT HAPPENED.

There were no WMD in Iraq prior to W's war.

Seriously, go seek therapy...because you are living in some type of illusion and are denying reality.

[slucero]

Actually....it may have been exactly what they wanted. For the most part anyways. Remember who his base voters are. I think what we are seeing now is a lot of Democrats will start to distance themselves from him only because they want to try and get elected into office. Interestingly enough, I've not been aware of any democrats seeking Obama's endorsement. If this is true, my next question is why do you think this is the situation?

Romney's camp believed if he got the independent vote he'd win... and then at the 2012 RNC convention, the RNC Rules Committee decide that their golden boy Romney had to be the UNANIMOUS candidate... so they held a floor vote 3 times to change the ballot access requirement from five states to eight states to prevent Ron Paul’s name from being entered into nomination. This effectively nullified the votes of Ron Paul's delegates.

Fun facts:

• In the 2012 election, Romney won the independent vote by 5%,
• In the 2012 election, Obama got 7.6 million fewer votes than when he won in 2008,
• In the 2012 election, Romney got LESS votes than McCain did in 2008!
• In the 2012 election, in no less than five states, Romney’s margin of loss to Obama was less than the number of votes received by Ron Paul in that state’s primary.

Why?

Because 40% of these Ron Paul voters (Independent and Republican), pissed about what happened at the RNC Convention:

• stayed home on Election Day,
• voted for "someone other than Romney", or
• voted for Obama!

So the GOP and RNC courted the Independent voters and delegates, then threw them ALL under the bus at the convention.

It was payback. It was deserved.

FUCK 'EM.

As far as why Dems are distancing themselves from Obama...Obama hasn't delivered... is a lame duck and and he has wolves nipping at his heels...

[The_Noble_Cause]

You see it your way, TNC...

- The Inquisitr article you posted had links to a CIA report saying that Saddam had NOT reconstituted the weapons program.

- The other WMD article you posted is a fucking op-ed (that's like me posting an Al Franken or Dave Barry humor piece, and waving it around as evidence of something).

- You claim you were posting FOR Dan, when in reality, you said, "something FROM Dan."

All of these things are empirical facts. They are not my subjective opinion. Like Monker said, seek help bro. I feel sorry for your dumb ass.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Canadian's Version of David Letterman's Top 10.

Just makes you wanna shake you head in disbelief....

Number 10) Only in America...could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000.00 per plate campaign fund-raising event.

Number 9) Only in America ...could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when they have a black President, a black Attorney General and roughly 20% of the federal workforce is black while only 14% of the population is black 40+% of all federal entitlements goes to black Americans - 3X the rate that go to whites, 5X the rate that go to Hispanics!

Number Only in America...could they have had the two people most responsible for the tax code, Timothy Geithner (the head of the Treasury Department) and Charles Rangel (who once ran the Ways and Means Committee), BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes.

Number 7) Only in America...can they have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash.

Number 6) Only in America...would they make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege, while they discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just 'magically' become American citizens (probably should be number one).

Number 5) Only in America....could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as "extremists."

Number 4) Only in America...could you need to present a driver's license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.

Number 3) Only in America...could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. Oil company(Marathon Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike).

Number 2) Only in America....could the government collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a Trillion dollars more than it has per year - for total spending of $7-Million PER MINUTE, and complain that it doesn't have nearly enough money.

And Number 1) Only in America...could the rich people - who pay 86% of all income taxes - be accused of not paying their "fair share" by people who don't pay any income taxes at all .

Sounds like this is from Canada's low rated, public access version of Bill O'Reilly. You do realize that taxes are higher in Canada, right? A country wide poll named Tommy Douglas, who brought single payer healthcare to Canada, as the greatest Canadian that ever lived. Canadians, like Jim Carrey or the Kids in the Hall guys, are usually very funny. This just a list of bitter resentments. Lolz at the Tea Partiers "wanting to balance the budget and sticking by the constitution." Most Tea Partiers are old farts zipping around on scooters with a "Don't Tread On Me" bumper sticker, as they collect Soc. Security and Medicare, both which they want the big bad gov't to keep their hands off of because they are too dumb to realize they r government socialist programs. Listen, please, this forum already has one right wing choad smoker who can't articulate his opinions, so he just cuts n' pastes garbage. FF is pretty good at that. He's like the Down Syndrome boy who bags groceries at Walmart. FF isn't good at much, but I'll be damned if he doesn't earnestly try. He doesn't need the competition. Get your own shtick, hack.

[JBlake]

Canadian's Version of David Letterman's Top 10.

Just makes you wanna shake you head in disbelief....

Number 10) Only in America...could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000.00 per plate campaign fund-raising event.

Number 9) Only in America ...could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when they have a black President, a black Attorney General and roughly 20% of the federal workforce is black while only 14% of the population is black 40+% of all federal entitlements goes to black Americans - 3X the rate that go to whites, 5X the rate that go to Hispanics!

Number Only in America...could they have had the two people most responsible for the tax code, Timothy Geithner (the head of the Treasury Department) and Charles Rangel (who once ran the Ways and Means Committee), BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes.

Number 7) Only in America...can they have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash.

Number 6) Only in America...would they make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege, while they discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just 'magically' become American citizens (probably should be number one).

Number 5) Only in America....could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as "extremists."

Number 4) Only in America...could you need to present a driver's license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.

Number 3) Only in America...could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. Oil company(Marathon Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike).

Number 2) Only in America....could the government collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a Trillion dollars more than it has per year - for total spending of $7-Million PER MINUTE, and complain that it doesn't have nearly enough money.

And Number 1) Only in America...could the rich people - who pay 86% of all income taxes - be accused of not paying their "fair share" by people who don't pay any income taxes at all .

Great post. Spot on. Voters like Monker and TNC are loving it..... because....this is their only "special purpose"....mission accomplished!

[The_Noble_Cause]

Umm, aren't u are on here defending the legacy of Bush Jr? You truly have no shame. You would vote for a Dick Cheney big government authoritarian presidency in a mechanical heartbeat all the while hiding behind the small government facade of the tea party and other unemployed retirees prancing around in revolutionary war costumes. I love how Monker automatically becomes a card carrying liberal just because he shoots down right wing lies and bs. Too funny. I don't think he's a Democrat. I DO think you are a fucking imbecile. So you're in good company in this thread.

[JBlake]

If McCain was black and Obama was white, would McCain have won?

Isn't that sort of like asking: "If your sister had been born with a set of balls, would she have been a better quarter back then say Joe Namath"?

No it's not. It's asking a real question.

Asking "if McCain had been black..." is the exact same as asking "If your sister had been born with a set of balls...." Only individuals like you would say that one is not and the other one is.

Matter of fact, throughout the entire 2009 election, the mention of "the first black president" was at the very top discussions of the Dems, which overshadowed any actual accomplishments Obama had before the election. Media and democrat voter base both equally thrived on the premise that Obama "could become the first black president". The fact of the matter is, Obama was voted into office only because he was black, which makes that entire deal racially motivated. And history shows that you get what you voted for. Loser president! He's a modern day Sargent Schultz when it comes to being the leader of this country, the decision maker of this country. Asked about IRS, VA, NSA, Libya, etc. etc. etc. and you get a big fat........"I know Nothing!"

[JBlake]

Umm, aren't u are on here defending the legacy of Bush Jr?

So correct me if I'm wrong, name one thing Bush blamed the previous president for when he wasn't able to deliver the "goods" during his own presidency. Now, how many things Obama, and the dems for that matter, blamed the previous president for when Obama wasn't able to deliver the "goods" during his presidency.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Asking "if McCain had been black..." is the exact same as asking "If your sister had been born with a set of balls...." Only individuals like you would say that one is not and the other one is.

Matter of fact, throughout the entire 2009 election, the mention of "the first black president" was at the very top discussions of the Dems, which overshadowed any actual accomplishments Obama had before the election. Media and democrat voter base both equally thrived on the premise that Obama "could become the first black president". The fact of the matter is, Obama was voted into office only because he was black, which makes that entire deal racially motivated. And history shows that you get what you voted for. Loser president! He's a modern day Sargent Schultz when it comes to being the leader of this country, the decision maker of this country. Asked about IRS, VA, NSA, Libya, etc. etc. etc. and you get a big fat........"I know Nothing!"

You seem to have quite a few racial hang-ups. McCain lost on the battle of ideas. Did some voters cast a ballot based on race? Sure, but not enough to swing the outcome. You don't want to entertain the scenario of McCain being black because that would put the focus on his poorly run campaign and stupid ideas ("we are all Georgians" wtf?!). You'd much rather hide behind the big scary black man, wouldn't you? This thread is a repository of illiterate, racist, lying fools. If any rock stars lurk here, schooled in the Beatles era ethos of peace and love, they must be mortified. It's enough to make a man hang up his guitar and go sell aluminum siding.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Umm, aren't u are on here defending the legacy of Bush Jr?

So correct me if I'm wrong, name one thing Bush blamed the previous president for when he wasn't able to deliver the "goods" during his own presidency. Now, how many things Obama, and the dems for that matter, blamed the previous president for when Obama wasn't able to deliver the "goods" during his presidency?

Whoopsie! Looks like you're full of shit again! Btw this is just one of many. I think presidents SHOULD name names and kick some ass. Americans reside in a state of historical amnesia. That's why politicians keep getting elected and doing the same thing.


http://money.cnn.com/2002/08/07/news/ec ... sh_cheney/

[JBlake]

Asking "if McCain had been black..." is the exact same as asking "If your sister had been born with a set of balls...." Only individuals like you would say that one is not and the other one is.

Matter of fact, throughout the entire 2009 election, the mention of "the first black president" was at the very top discussions of the Dems, which overshadowed any actual accomplishments Obama had before the election. Media and democrat voter base both equally thrived on the premise that Obama "could become the first black president". The fact of the matter is, Obama was voted into office only because he was black, which makes that entire deal racially motivated. And history shows that you get what you voted for. Loser president! He's a modern day Sargent Schultz when it comes to being the leader of this country, the decision maker of this country. Asked about IRS, VA, NSA, Libya, etc. etc. etc. and you get a big fat........"I know Nothing!"

You seem to have quite a few racial hang-ups. McCain lost on the battle of ideas. Did some voters cast a ballot based on race? Sure, but not enough to swing the outcome. You don't want to entertain the scenario of McCain being black because that would put the focus on his poorly run campaign and stupid ideas ("we are all Georgians" wtf?!). You'd much rather hide behind the big scary black man, wouldn't you? This thread is a repository of illiterate, racist, lying fools. If any rock stars lurk here, schooled in the Beatles era ethos of peace and love, they must be mortified. It's enough to make a man hang up his guitar and go sell aluminum siding.

Had I voted for Obama, it would have been solely on the premise that Obama is black, cause there were no accomplishments I heard of that he had contributed to before he ran for president. Matter of fact, I had never even heard of Obama before the 2009 election. Because of these two facts, I did not want to vote for someone who I've never heard of before and someone who has no track record of accomplishments. Had I voted for him anyways, I'd a been like all the rest of those who voted for him, doing so based solely on race.

[Monker]

So, now you are going to take propaganda Email spam and post it here as if it has any real meaning? No wonder you guys are insane, you take your Email spam as if it is serious commentary.

Canadian's Version of David Letterman's Top 10.

Just makes you wanna shake you head in disbelief....

Number 10) Only in America...could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000.00 per plate campaign fund-raising event.

Number 9) Only in America ...could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when they have a black President, a black Attorney General and roughly 20% of the federal workforce is black while only 14% of the population is black 40+% of all federal entitlements goes to black Americans - 3X the rate that go to whites, 5X the rate that go to Hispanics!

Number Only in America...could they have had the two people most responsible for the tax code, Timothy Geithner (the head of the Treasury Department) and Charles Rangel (who once ran the Ways and Means Committee), BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes.

Number 7) Only in America...can they have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash.

Number 6) Only in America...would they make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege, while they discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just 'magically' become American citizens (probably should be number one).

Number 5) Only in America....could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as "extremists."

Number 4) Only in America...could you need to present a driver's license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.

Number 3) Only in America...could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. Oil company(Marathon Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike).

Number 2) Only in America....could the government collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a Trillion dollars more than it has per year - for total spending of $7-Million PER MINUTE, and complain that it doesn't have nearly enough money.

And Number 1) Only in America...could the rich people - who pay 86% of all income taxes - be accused of not paying their "fair share" by people who don't pay any income taxes at all .

[The_Noble_Cause]

Had I voted for Obama, it would have been solely on the premise that Obama is black, cause there were no accomplishments I heard of that he had contributed to before he ran for president. Matter of fact, I had never even heard of Obama before the 2009 election. Because of these two facts, I did not want to vote for someone who I've never heard of before and someone who has no track record of accomplishments. Had I voted for him anyways, I'd a been like all the rest of those who voted for him, doing son based solely on race.

The fact that you hadn't heard of O until the election tells me you aren't really informed. Which is pretty obvious. Secondly, candidates don't solely get judged based on their record. They assemble a team of policy advisors, and put forward policy proposals. Obama's thin record won handily over McCain becuz McCain was horrible! But, please, don't let such harsh truths wake you from your white supremacist daydreams.

[JBlake]

Umm, aren't u are on here defending the legacy of Bush Jr?

So correct me if I'm wrong, name one thing Bush blamed the previous president for when he wasn't able to deliver the "goods" during his own presidency. Now, how many things Obama, and the dems for that matter, blamed the previous president for when Obama wasn't able to deliver the "goods" during his presidency?

Whoopsie! Looks like you're full of shit again! Btw this is just one of many. I think presidents SHOULD name names and kick some ass. Americans reside in a state of historical amnesia. That's why politicians keep getting elected and doing the same thing.


http://money.cnn.com/2002/08/07/news/ec ... sh_cheney/

Ok, I read the article. So tell me, what was it that President Bush wasn't able to deliver in which he turned around and claimed it was the previous president's fault for him not being able to deliver the goods? The article does outline some great information that Bush lowered taxes for small businesses. What's wrong with doing that? Again, I read the article but don't see where Bush says he wasn't able to accomplish "such and such" because of the previous president and/or democrats. The article agrees that the economy was in a bad situation before Bush took office. But again, where does it mention Bush pointing out he's not able to deliver the "goods" because of the past president and/or democrats? And what are the "goods" he's claiming he and/or his administration are not being able to deliver because of it?