Having Fun with some Progressives

President Obama Caricature by www.aaacaricatures.com

I rarely EVER go to liberal blogging web sites any longer. For one thing - they use disgusting language and profanity without exception. I used to go as a journalist - but find that it's much nicer for my life to just read the Wall Street Journal, watch Fox News and read select articles from various news sources.

Here's a link I followed and I just had to make a comment after reading the article and the following comments by the leftist progressives. I was bad - I know - but I just HAD to write it...

I HATE to give this web site any traffic at all - but if you're interested in why I commented:

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/lawrence-odonnell-rips-liz-cheney-dover-af

Let's get on the logic train here where we visit liberals in their land. As we board, we see Liz Cheny comments were - checking the subject here and rechecking the subject here-- PRESIDENT Obama and his visit to Dover AFB. Very good.  I viewed his speech given there and BTW was appalled by Mr. Obama's sickening reference to a "photo op" regarding the military he was going to be seen with. Now most people know, he was trying to be "funny." This the man who up until that moment in his Presidency had not even met with his joint chiefs of staff, no less visited the war wounded more than once or twice and then only as candidate. But he sure had time to GOLF. This President who never served and made clear his dislike, disdain and aversion to the U.S. Military. And trust me, the military know it --


But I digress.

Chugga, Chugga -- We're here on the train going along for the ride not only reading this article but then enjoying the comments by the like-minded here. Notice the numerous comments were NOT focused or generally ABOUT THE SUBJECT - which was - let me repeat here for the challenged comment-makers - the PRESIDENT - NO NO NO, the comments instantly went to not only a personal attack against Liz Cheny but against her father the VICE President and his alleged lack of visits to the troops. I'm using the term VICE here with emphasis for a reason. Follow me on this train if you will.

Yet even in this VERY ARTICLE - which those here hadn't apparently comprehended -there is a clear admission that former PRESIDENT Bush OFTEN visited the troops and went to military bases etc. admitted for the INFORMED reader to compare to what we (with a brain) all know is the disgusting LACK of any contact what-so-ever with ANY military by PRESIDENT Obama. Even the ARTICLE writer knew to some extent - that the COMPARISON should be made between the two PRESIDENT'S as the complaint is - rightly so - that Mr. Obama is a dolt when it comes to being the Commander-in-Chief.

It is widely and I mean widely known and discussed quietly behind closed doors by senior and top military officials and officers that this President is worthless when it comes to being the C-I-C. I know because I'm an Army wife of over 30 years - with a husband who has served in both Afghanistan and Iraq and who has a son in Afghanistan as I write this. MY SON IS NO PHOTO OP MR. OBAMA. NOT FUNNY, NOT FUNNY AT ALL!

To summerize - stick to the TOPIC at hand. Article about President Obama and his visits or more correctly LACK THEREOF to military installations. If one wishes to compare - one must compare OTHER PRESIDENTS - not the White House janitor's visits to the sick and wounded or the Press Secretary's visits to the military - stick to the SUBJECT.

Well - it's time to get off the train. This "logic" train - when following liberal arguments-- goes nowhere. But this is the usual ride we get with liberals and progressives. If you have ZERO merit to your argument, attack the messenger and in this case, attack the messenger's FATHER who has NOTHING to do with the DEBATE. ZERO - ZIP.

What is so sickening is that we elected one of these brainless teleprompter idiots to be President of the United States. God help us - but as of this writing  -- it looks like the adults will once again be in charge of our government come the next elections and the ones that will follow. Then we can only pray  this huge blunder will just go down in history as being the blot on America's Presidency when we elected the worst most inexperienced do-nothing- know-nothing-say nothing-without-a- teleprompter-and-a-golf-club-in-his hand-President. I just saw the photo of him today needing a teleprompter to speak to GRADE SCHOOLERS. And although he sent 40,000 troops (he lied - he SAID he was only sending 30,000, he's sending 40,000) to face their possible death or disfigurement, Mr. Obama has played more golf in ONE YEAR than Mr. Bush did his entire Presidency. Although American's were/are missing in Haiti -- he managed to stump for a failure in Mass.

Have teleprompter will travel to those glorious golf-courses!

And the liberals and progressives called W an idiot - what a joke you all are! Getting off the train now - won't be back! Shaking my head in disgust as I go wondering how people like the comment-makers should even be allowed to VOTE!  Cugga, chugga, CHOO CHOO!

More by this Author


Comments 21 comments

breakfastpop profile image

breakfastpop 6 years ago

Dear cj,

'I am so relieved you jumped off the train. A trip like that can ruin your mental health. You have Obama figured out perfectly and as an army wife and mother of a soldier you have enormous credibility when it comes to his relationship with the troops. He doesn't have one, because he doesn't care. It's not his thing, it's not his bag. Your passion comes through so powerfully in this piece. Terrific writing about a train that should be de-railed!


maven101 profile image

maven101 6 years ago from Northern Arizona

Choo-Choo Obama will be derailed in Nov...I'm so glad you survived that harrowing trip to the land of the verbally vapid and diminished demagogues...I hope you didn't partake of the offered Kool-aid...The only drink served on that Trotskyite train...You are a brave and intrepid woman to risk reputation and honor in such a hellish place...Welcome back...Go Sarah...Beat Blue...Larry


cjv123 profile image

cjv123 6 years ago from Michigan Author

Well Pop and Maven I admit - I was greatly shaken - to be in the presence of such sucking air sounds - the sounds of the air blowing through the heads of the progressives on the train! What a harrowing experience!! Glad to be back from the land of the clueless!


eovery profile image

eovery 6 years ago from MIddle of the Boondocks of Iowa

What are the "progressives" going to do in a few years when they can't blame Bush and Cheney any more?

I heard a good on the other day. Obama had a check up with his doctor, and the doctor said that he couldm't blame Bush for his constipation problem.

Keep on hubbing!


cjv123 profile image

cjv123 6 years ago from Michigan Author

ROTFL Eovery! You know what? I have a feeling that they will go on blaming Bush for decades - I honestly do. Their policies are horrible - they have to blame someone for all of their failures!


Tony's Post 6 years ago

I think you refer to Obama as "Dumbest President" I disagree, can you say George W Bush or Herbert Hoover, just to name two.


cjv123 profile image

cjv123 6 years ago from Michigan Author

Poor Tony - instead of looking at what ypu perceive as a great personality, let's look at results. You have zero proof that W is "dumber" than President Obama as President Obama won't release any scholastic records. Therefore - let's look at the facts -

Mr. Obama goes to Copenhagen to get the Olympics here for "America." Or most likely - to pay off his Chicago cronies. Big fat debacle.

Mr. Obama was back in Copenhagen for the U.N.'s climate summit. It was a "chronicle of a fiasco foretold" but this brilliant president went anyway. Gee, can someone tell me what happened with that decision of Mr. Obama's? Did that produce "fruit" of success? I quote Der Spiegel as reported in the Wall Street Journal, "The debacle of Copenhagen is also Barack Obama's debacle..." Everyone, EVERYONE knew it was bone headed to even go there after Climategate had been exposed. But Mr. Brilliance and Arrogance himself didn't listen. Yeah - he's a genius. He's always showing that his decisions are simply BRILLIANT.

In Mr. Obama's inaugural address - he offered the world's dictators an "outstretched hand" in exchange for a "clenched fist." Let's visit the list of what he got:

North Korea: missile and nuclear tests

Iran: contemptuous rejection of his offer and enriched uranium

Cuba: Castro said last month that "the empire's real intentions are obvious, this time beneath the kindly smile and African-American face of Barack Obama."

Venezuela: Hugo Chavez - now compares Mr. Obama to the devil - Gee - seems he's done that before with a former President - oh yeah - the "dumb" one you call W.

Now - still sticking with the WSJ - what about our non-enemies? The President pre-emtively conceded the Czech and Polish missile-defense bases to Russia in hopes of getting Moscow to take a tougher line in Tehran's nuclear programs. The Kremlin "isn't biting". Neither is China, even though Mr. Obama openly snubbed the Dalai Lama.

In a new 2009 Pew Global Survey that measures opinions about the U.S. it finds: the numbers across the board (see WSJ "Obama and the Copenhagen Syndrome") are only up slightly higher than his predecessor. How's that Hopey Changey thing goin'? Obviously not all that well.

Let's not forget either that after 9/11 - for the entire Bush Presidency - not ONE TIME was there ONE SINGLE terrorist attack within the United States. Mr. Obama isn't in office 1 YEAR and we have a Terrorist attack on U.S. soil i.e. Ft. Hood.

Let's take a quick gander at the "dumb" Bush's record. He "inherits" a horrible economy (a term the President and the Obama administration uses constantly) and even though we had 9/11 - a horrific blow to our economy. Yet after only a shaky few days - our economy - Wall Street and otherwise remained strong and became stronger. In addition, compared to the Clinton years, Mr. Bush’s “inheritance” – there was:

lower inflation

lower unemployment

faster productivity growth

faster labor compensation growth (i.e., wages and benefits)

29.4 percent ($6.9 trillion) more economic output

45 percent ($960 billion) more exports

an economic growth rate 81.2 percent (about the same as Clinton’s)

We all know the disastrous economy we now have, far, far worse than when Mr. Obama took office and getting worse. Plus, unemployment went way, way above what Mr. Obama PROMISED it wouldn’t – 8%.

Now – the very thing Mr. Obama obsessively refers to – what he “inherited” did not BEGIN to go downhill for us until the mid-term elections and the DEMOCRATS took over Congress. When anyone takes a look at what happened from the momentous point on – it doesn't take Columbo to determine things began to go downhill. Our Buddy Barney (talk about no brains) demanded the banks make essentially – bad loans. Brilliant! Loan money to people of high risk even if the likelihood of them paying back the loan is zero to null. Now THERE'S a super idea!! Any knowledgeable person can watch just what began to happen next and how the economy began its destructive path to tanking. When people began to default on those loans. It was a horrible – yet predictable – domino effect. Something the Bush administration tried to warn about several times – Hey - we need to look out for Fannie Mae – this is going to be a mess – but the Democrat majority of course, ignored those warnings.

So looking at ACTIONS and the FACTS - not just pretty words on a teleprompter – we can see the results of “dumb” and the facts do not in any way support Mr. Bush being a dumby. Oh that we only had that “dumby” back in office!

Now - with a TOTAL Democrat mandate and Mr. Genius in office - we have one of the worst economies IN HISTORY with no sign of recovery. How could this President accomplish nothing but DAMAGE to this country with so much power at his fingertips? Because he's so much smarter than Mr. Bush? Keep following that logic and you'll go far in life!


Tony's Post 6 years ago

Hi CJV123 thanks for the advice, but I will stick with my own, it’s taken me pretty far.

Now to get down to business. The one thing I do admire about republicans (repugs) is you talk loud, but when you finish, you haven’t said much. You go on... and on...but after all the rhetoric, you end up back where you started, not saying anything.

You threw a lot against the wall in your response to me, I will be happy to discuss all of what you said, but I will deal with those issues one at a time. Today I will just deal with economic issues. First, when Clinton left office unemployment was at 4.2%, so it was 4.2% when Bush took office, the economy was in a small downturn, not a recession, since you need two consecutive quarters of no growth to be considered a recession. The downturn started in March 2001 and ended in December 2001, that’s 8 months. So, I will meet you repugs halfway, I will call it a mini recession.

Also, staying with unemployment, under Bush unemployment peaked at 6.3% in 2003, trough at 4.4% in 2007, with a dem congress, rose to 6.1% in 2008, rose again to 7.2% in Dec. 2008, and when he left office and Obama took office, it went up to 7.6% and was climbing. Also that month, the economy lost another 655,000 jobs. All this happened before Obama took office, but you repugs say this is Obama’s recession! The economy was losing 600,000 to 700,000 jobs a month before the stimulus.

After the stimulus bill passed, the economy was losing about 300,000 jobs a month. In Nov. 2009 we had a growth of 4000 jobs. In Dec 2009 we lost again 45,000 jobs not good, a long way to go, a lot of work to do, but moving in the right direction. Where do you think we would be without the stimulus? I really hate to think about it. It should have been larger. Obama did make one mistake, he did say unemployment wouldn't go higher than 8.5%, advice from his advisors. He once say it could reach 10% to 11%, a more realistic number giving the economy was losing 700,000 jobs a month, and the unemployment rate was 7.6% and climbing when he took office. One lie down hundreds to go!

Two, relative to above, job creation. In Clinton's two terms he created 11.5 and 11.2 million jobs, that’s 2.6% and 2.3% annually. Compared to Bush's two terms of .01 and 1.9 million jobs creation, that’s .002% and .035% respectively. For you repugs, I know these are really great employment numbers, as long as you don’t have to show them to anyone. The U.S. Labor Department lists this as the slowest job growth since Herbert Hoover! --The only other president dumber than Bush. Man, jimmy Carter had 10.3 million jobs created in his one term! --Down with another repug misinformation talking point.

Moreover, you said that Bush had an economic growth rate of, here it comes, 81.2%! Everyone should read J.Edward Carters article; anyone who study econ 101 knows that economic growth is connected to GDP, and Bush's best GDP was 2.8% from 2001-2005. The only reason it was that good was because of home equity extractions. I’ll let you look that one up, but if you want, I can explain it to you. Don’t try and find it in another J. Edward Carter's article? --Another lie down and so many more to go. No wonder Dems are so worn out from combating repugs lies!

On a shorter note, one-In 1994 repugs take over congress. Two-inflation is skill low. Three-faster productivity 29%, what exactly is this? I think I know. I think it’s a number inside of a number. Example, unemployment is 10% but amongst minorities its 20%. I don’t know, please explain that one to me. I could go on...and on...and...on, you get the message. I will end here, but if you like to talk again please let me know. Take care, POOR POOR CJV123! Oh, I know I didn't cover all of your misinformation, repug talking points, but there's always another day.

Obama has only been in office for one year, and already has done more than Bush did in his 8 years. He's also cleaning up repug’s messes... again


cjv123 profile image

cjv123 6 years ago from Michigan Author

Your own advice has taken you pretty far? I wouldn't brag about that if I were you...

You comment was so filled with grammatical errors and other errors, I find it almost impossible to read frankly. I'll have to read it five or more times to understand some simple sentences unfortunately and right now - I do not have that kind of time.

I honestly can't understand most of what you've written not the content mind you - it's because your misspellings and grammar are so horrible you don't make sense. That's reading and writing 101 and I'm afraid you've failed fairly miserably. Sorry - but I do not have any time at all to sift through your horrible writing to try and understand your fuzzy math numbers no less translate the untranslatable. Talk about misinformation -- if I get a chance I'll attempt to tackle this another day. If you want to win - you win - I can't argue something I can't read in English.


cjv123 profile image

cjv123 6 years ago from Michigan Author

OK - in the light of day, I think I can make a generalization about your diatribe above.

Try to follow the discussion at hand now - do not get off on tangents as you have above - or at least - I think you have - given I can hardly read it.

I only used Mr. Clinton to compare to what Mr. Obama uses constantly - he "inherited" this problem. I did see you were able to admit - Mr. Bush inherited a country headed for a deep recession. You choose to make light of it - heading towards a recession means the economy was tanking. Period. "recession light" isn't an economic term. Paint it what you will - your three month ear-mark was happening - the numbers pointed toward a floundering economy that was in big, big trouble - something Mr. Bush "inherited.

Now - 1) Mr. Bush never ONE TIME referred to anything that went wrong at ANY TIME in his Presidency as being Clinton's fault. He never even hinted it. A class act. This is in stark contract to Mr. Obama who won't STOP blaming anyone but himself. Despite the packaging a classLESS act.

Last night - in his state of the union - he blamed even his own party, the Republicans for being obstructionists and the ever present LIE that Republicans never came up with an alternative to his Health Care behemoth - the Supreme Court - EVERYONE but himself.

What is TRANSPARENTLY hilarious (unlike his promised administration) is to blame Republicans for being able to stop ANYTHING is such a joke! The Democraps are in COMPLETE control. Until Brown's special election - they couldn't even filibuster. So what a load of bull ca=ca THAT one is. Anyone fooled by THAT nonsense from his lips is an idiot.

He's not only clueless but he assumes the U.S. public is stupid. Believe me - we're not. We were to elect him, but we've awakened. Hope and change - we now know was a smoke screen and lies. His change was nothing about what he TRULY intended for this country. And the country is in FAR worse shape since he's taken over than when he took office.

Secondly - your entire comment defended Clinton against Mr. Bush and you compared Mr. Bush's record to Mr. Clinton. Not the point - typical of a liberal trying to argue anything but THE POINT. Just throw some mud around - go off on a total tangent and HOPE no one will have any possibility of noticing that the liberal has no merit to their argument.

Let's focus here - again I repeat - i ONLY used President Clinton's record to show you that while Mr. Bush "inherited" a mess - he not only didn't blame Mr. Clinton - HE FIXED IT.

The OPPOSITE of the Teleprompter King - i.e. Mr. Obama.

What we are ACTUALLY doing here is comparing Mr. Bush's record TO MR. OBAMA's record. Now - take all your numbers - I'm not going to because I can't sift through your horrible writing - sad to say - but honestly - your only excuse would be if English is your third language. If that is the case - I apologize.

So taking your numbers - NOW - apply them to PRESIDENT OBAMA'S numbers, NOT Mr. Clinton's - we can limit it to both their first years. BY COMPARISON - we find - as I stated earlier - teleprompters don't a genius make. We find that clearly 1) Mr. Bush's 1st year was MUCH better than Mr. Obama's first year. In fact - it's probably hard to find any President's first year as disastrous as Mr. Obama's going back to the Great Depression era - and 2) - Mr. Obama is an utter failure in comparison to Mr. Bush.

You may wish to call Mr. Bush stupid in comparison to Mr. Obama -but it just shows your lack of intelligence by doing so when we compare the records of Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama as sitting Presidents. That's the point - that's the argument. So support the actual point - not other irrelevant added arguments.

Oh - Mr. Bush never had to have a teleprompter in a GRADE SCHOOL classroom as Mr. Obama needed recently - Whose more stupid here?? Mr. Bush who spoke MOST of the time without a teleprompter or Mr. Obama who CAN'T SPEAK without one? I rest my case.


Tony's Post 6 years ago

I know you don't have the time. That's just like you repugs, to insult when someone puts you in your place. Thanks for the admission.

First, I didn't say Bush "Inherited" a deep recession. I said, the economy was in a dip, a mini recession, which it was existing, before Bush's tax cuts and economic policies. Bush "Inherited" the foundation for a strong growing economy, Obama "Inherited" an economy on the brink of the second "GREAT DEPRESSION", with job loses of 700,000 a month and rising unemployment. Bush's own economy advisor, Greg Manikaw, was against the Bush tax cuts. So tell me, what needed fixing, there was nothing to fix? Please, show me what needed to be fix? Where are the numbers, the proof that showed something needed fixing? The only thing needed fixing was Bush's bad policy, we are now living the nigthmare.

Next, the state of the union address, I dont know which one you were watching, but Obama did say "he could have done some things differently".

Furthermore, you said "Bush never blamed Clinton for what he inherited", again, there was nothing there to blame. Repugs alway reach back and try to blame Clinton for their failures.

Finally, "tangents an mudslinging", that's the pot calling the kettle black, everything I said is true, just look it up.

On Obama's record, he's only been in office one year, the jury is still out?


cjv123 profile image

cjv123 6 years ago from Michigan Author

Try to focus - compare Bush's first year to Obama's first year. I've said that is what we are comparing. Compared to Mr. Bush he is a total failure. You have a great deal of difficulty staying on topic. You keep going back to Mr. Clinton - that is not what this entire discussion is about.

FURTHERMORE the discussion BEGAN because you called Mr. Bush the "dumbest" President. Again - I used Mr. Bush's FIRST YEAR IN OFFICE - a President who inherited a bad economy AND had to deal with a crushing blow to the economy with 9/11 IN HIS FIRST YEAR - and still - Mr. Obama has done horrendously worse IN HIS FIRST YEAR when compared to Mr. Bush. My POINT being - using their ACTIONS as opposed to just what they say - MR. BUSH IS NO DUMBY - using Mr. Obama's actions - HE CERTAINLY IS. Stick to topic.

Obama inherited what his party created - the economic horror is directly related to the Dem. run Congress (Barney Frank) demanding banks and lending institutions lend shaky loans. It caused the domino effect once these loans defaulted en masse and caused the economic crisis we are in and has gotten worse under Obama. This is common knowledge - read the Wall Street Journal. Mr. Obama inherited what his own party did to this country. You can blame everything on Mr. Bush but you delude yourself as does Mr. Obama delude his own self and lies to the American people constantly about. - Included in this debacle that the Democrats created is Fannie Mae and the like - another pet project of Mr. Frank - that we are in the crisis we are in - to which the Bush admin warned about repeatedly but was ignored by who? The Democrats. This crisis was caused by YOUR beloved party. For Mr. Obama to constantly and repeatedly whine about what he inherited from Bush is ludicrous and classless and actually a flat out LIE.

And you contradicted yourself - "Furthermore, you said 'Bush never blamed Clinton for what he inherited', again, there was nothing there to blame. "

JUST above that classic statement you admit - Mr. Bush came into office with a RECESSION in progress - you call it a "mini" recession - OK - let's say it was a "mini" one - so Mr. Bush DID inherit something A RECESSION by your own words. So you are of course WRONG.

We're done. I'm not going to change your mind - and heaven knows you'll never change mine - I don't read the funny pages and blogs for my current events and political news - enough. Seriously - stop repeating the tired old mantra of the left over and over. You can't go on blaming Bush for these imaginary things forever.

And to clarify - I didn't say I didn't have the time to answer your argument - I said I didn't have the time to sift through an argument so poorly written as yours - it was illegible. There's a difference. Don't use the "typical Repug" excuse - I was strictly talking about how poorly it was written and didn't have the time to go through trying to understand it despite the numerous grammatical mistakes and misspellings you made. I ended up answering it anyway when I DID have more time. So that snippy remark was specious and merely a lame attempt to cloud the issue. I do admit - this last comment of yours was easier to read - but the one before it was a lu-lu!

Reread this article. Reread what I've written to your comments before you reply to things. You trip yourself up by totally missing the point and going off the topic and then by contradicting yourself. That is for the future. RIght now - don't reply - I don't wish to discuss this with you any longer. I honestly have to be moving on now, I don't have time to teach an English class. Out here.


Tony's Post 6 years ago

Hi, first, you were able to response, so you understood well enough. I will not get into insults, it distracts from the real issues.

Now, I said, the frist 8 months Bush was in office, the economy was in a downturn, a mild recression. A recession, dose not mean the economy is tanking, it means two consecutive quarters of no growth.

When Bush took office, unemployment was 4.2%, we were in a mild recession, but Dec 2001, we were coming out of it, that's before Bush's failed economic policies; Economic killing, Deficit creating, tax cuts for the rich, deregulations of wall street, banks, and the creation of swaps markets. Bush and a repug congress, inherited one of, if not the best economy, in american history, a surplus of 250 billion dollars and positioned for future growth.

Furthermore, dems take over congress in 2006. In 2005, under a repug congress, unemployment stood at 6.1%, by the end of 2007, unemployment was 4.4%, at the start of what we now know to be, "THE GREAT RECESSION". By the summer of 2008, the bottom fell out, unemployment rose to 7.2%, thanks to Bush's failed economic policies(mentioned above) and the swaps markets; The selling of mortgages on wall street for profit!

Lastly, when Bush lefted office, and Obama took office, unemployment rose... agin, my bad, again, to 7.6%, a loss of another 655,000 jobs, and was still climbing. So, there is no way you lying repugs, can pin this on the "DEMS". This is the mess they left behind, dems just have to clean it up, once more.

P.S.- I'm not trying to change your mind! I want to reach those people who may not know the facts, get them asking questions, and seeking the truth.

Everything I said here can be googled.

Have a "GREAT DAY!"


cjv123 profile image

cjv123 6 years ago from Michigan Author

I'm sorry but I have to point this out again. I'm looking at your grammar and misspellings and I'm going to say that your numbers are about as accurate. I have no idea where you get your numbers - Bush inherited a BAD ECONOMY AND what was looking like a recession. When Bush "lefted" office - the" great Depression" and lost jobs was BECAUSE OF THE DEMS who took over as I've repeated here over and over. If you would educate yourself about how to write you might also learn how to read. Your information is very inaccurate and something you wish to be true, not factual.

After this, your comments will be denied I'm afraid. Enough is enough. Let's just agree to disagree.


jiberish profile image

jiberish 6 years ago from florida

CJV, if you watched the SOTU teleprompter speech you saw that he forgot to recognize the soldiers who were injured at Fort Hood. He hates the Military, the Supreme Court, and us peasants for sticking up for them. Now let's all stand and applaud. Great Hub!


cjv123 profile image

cjv123 6 years ago from Michigan Author

I couldn't watch him. My son had just informed us after being in a fairly safe area for about a month - he was headed for a very dangerous mission. I couldn't even listen to BHO's voice - you are absolutely right Jiberish - Mr. Obama has made no bones about his disdain for the military. I just watched video later and read out of some 69 minutes he mentions the war on terror what six minutes? And never mentions the very men and women in the military who are the REASON he is able to stand there - in this country, free to read his teleprompter. He has to be the worst President we've ever had - it's just pathetic.


Tony's Post 6 years ago

Google George W Bush and Economic Policy, you will find the facts there.


cjv123 profile image

cjv123 6 years ago from Michigan Author

Tony - all kidding aside - Google - the left wing search engine is the same search engine that for YEARS of the Bush administration Google had a "link bomb" that if anyone typed in merely the word "failure" page after page would come up with "George W. Bush." They also had similar things happen for using the same word and clicking "feeling lucky?" If you type in the same word for Obama - no such deal.

Google skews search results - read my article about it - in particular when it comes to George W. Bush. Other than one Forbes article - when I typed in just what you told me to - I found BLOGS Tony. Use either primary sources or do a search on the Wall Street Journal. You are getting your information from people who think just like you. They will absolutely skew the numbers. When I wrote editorials for the Lansing State Journal, on the same editorial team was an MSU Professor. He wrote an editorial which in part used numbers that cited 1/3 of our GDP was going toward the "great military complex." He was factually incorrect. I wrote an editorial proving his numbers were absolutely wrong by using the government's website for these numbers - a primary source.

He had a friend write a letter to the editor that was published saying I was all wrong and citing the sources that Dr. So and So used. IT WAS A LEFT WING BLOG. I'm no kidding! They had this whole pie-chart thing and they were absolutely WRONG. The Professor was factually incorrect.

Listen - let's just agree to disagree. As I've said before - I'm obviously not going to change your mind - you will not change mine. Leave it at that - this is going nowhere and quite frankly - I engage in an argument and become snotty and mean. I'm sorry for that. I'm very sorry for being insulting and nasty. Not sorry for my stand - just sorry for the tone I used. But please take my advice and read PRIMARY sources - don't just read left-wing blogs and web sites. History is going to show George Bush was a very good President who protected this country from terrorist attacks for his entire Presidency after 9/11. Mr. Obama already has failed miserably in that front alone. President Obama will absolutely go down as the worst President ever if he doesn't change his course hard and fast. In his first year he dropped in popularity faster than any other President ever. That's not because he's doing such a terrific job. He's a total failure. Maybe he can pull it out. We'll see. For now, for his first year he gets an F-.


Tony's Post 6 years ago

US Department Of Labor is a PRIMARY source, just to mention one. As for terrorist attacks, it depends on what you're calling an attack. Grade "B+", only because healthcare hasn't passed, yet!

Thanks for talking


habee profile image

habee 6 years ago from Georgia

Great hub and interesting comments. Love the train analogy!


Harvey Stelman profile image

Harvey Stelman 6 years ago from Illinois

cjv,

Did you say; "F-." Shame on you for using the "F" word. History will give him a "Z."

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working