How the foreign press views the Obama Presidency

1. 62

   Harvey Stelmanposted 14 years ago

   Ever wonder why we have to depend on the foreign press to find out what's "really" going on in our own country.  It's a good thing that Obama and the democrats don't own the Canadian press..  Here is what Howard Galganov predicts for Barack Hussein Obama - PLEASE READ:
   
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   
   
   Barack Hussein Obama:
   I Told You So –  Yes I Did
   
   By Howard Galganov
   
   Montreal, Quebec ,  Canada   
   
   
   
   
   When Obama won the Presidency with the help of the LEFTIST Media, Hollywood And Entertainment Liberals, Ethnic Socialists (ACORN), Stupid Non-Business Professionals and Bush Haters, I wrote:  It won't take six months until the People figure this guy out and realize how horrible a mistake they've made.  And when they come to that realization, the damage to the United States of America will be so great it will take a generation or more to repair - IF EVER.
   
   The IDIOTS who not only voted for the Messiah, but also worked [hard] to promote his Lordship, are now left holding the bag.
   
   Here are two things they will NEVER do:  They will NEVER admit to making a Blunder out of all proportion by electing a snake-oil salesman with no Positive social history or management experience of any kind.  They will NEVER take responsibility for the curse they've imposed upon the immediate and long-term future of their country.
   
   In essence, the people responsible for putting this horror show in power are themselves responsible for every cataclysmic decision he makes and the Consequences thereof.
   
   In just six months, the Messiah's polls are showing the following:  On Healthcare Reform - He's going under for the third time with polling well Under 50 percent, even within his own Party.  Even though he might be able to Muscle a Healthcare Reform Bill by using Chicago BULLY tactics against his Fellow Democrats, it will just make things worse.  On Cap and Trade (Cap and Tax) - The Fat-Lady is already singing.  On the Stimulus Package (Tax and Spend) - His popularity is in FREE-FALL.  On the TARP package he took and ran With from President Bush - It's all but Good-Night Irene.  On the closing of GITMO and "HIS" war on what he no longer wants called the War On Terrorism - He's standing in quicksand with his head just about to go under.  On a Comparison between himself and George W Bush at the same six months into Their respective first term Presidencies - Bush is ahead of him in the Polls On a comparison between He Who Walks On Water and the 12 preceding Presidents between WW II and now - Obama ranks 10th.  On a Poll just Conducted, that asks who would you vote for today between Obama and Mitt Romney - It's a dead heat.  Between Obama and Palin - Obama's ONLY ahead by 8 Points and she hasn't even begun to campaign.  It seems to me that Obama Wants to be everywhere where he shouldn't be.
   
   He's personally invested in 'totally insulting' America 's ONLY REAL Middle Eastern ally ( Israel ) in favor of Palestinian Despots and Murderers.  He's traveling the world apologizing for the USA while lecturing others on how to do it right, when in fact and truth he has no experience at doing anything other than getting elected.
   
   He went to the Moslem world in Egypt to declare that America IS NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION while he heaped praises on Islam, where he compared the "plight" of the Palestinians to the Holocaust.
   
   The Russians think he's a putz, The French think he's rude.
   
   The Germans want him to stop spending.
   
   The Indians want him to mix his nose out of their environmental business.
   
   The North Koreans think he's a joke, The Iranians won't acknowledge his calls.
   
   And the British can't even come up with a comprehensive opinion of him.
   
   As for the Chinese, he's too frightened to even glance their way.  [After All, China now owns a large portion of the United States .]
   
   Maybe if America's first Emperor would stay home more, travel less, and work a little bit instead of being on television just about everyday or stop running to "papered" Town Hall Meetings, perhaps he would have a little bit of time to do the work of the nation.
   
   In all fairness, it wasn't HARD to be RIGHT in my prediction concerning Obama's presidency, even in its first six months, so I'm going to make yet another prediction:
   
   OBAMA WILL PROBABLY NOT FINISH HIS 4-YEAR TERM, at least not in a Conventional way.
   
   He is such a political HORROR SHOW, and so detrimental to the USA and his Own Democratic Party, that the Democrats themselves will either FORCE him to Resign or figure out a way to have him thrown out.
   
   Who knows, maybe he really isn't a BORN US Citizen and that's a way the Democrats will be able to get rid of him.  [He is a citizen, but not a naturalized citizen with both mother and father being US citizens.]
   
   Or - MORE LIKELY THAN NOT, the Democrats will make Obama THEIR OWN LAME DUCK PRESIDENT.
   
   I don't believe the Democrats have nearly as much love for their country as they do for their own political fortunes. And with Obama, their fortunes are rapidly becoming toast.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Friendlywordposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY?  Are gonna scrap the gutters of the entire world to find every theatric wanna be with a pen?  Every problem he writes about were caused by the eight years we suffered from George Bush.  That not bashing, that is a fact.  I now you dont like facts to get in the way of your histerical rambling on. You got the wrong time and the wrong President to blame.  Check under some more rocks.

      replyreport
      1. 62

         Harvey Stelmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Friendly, Maybe you shoul read the post again; how can an opinion of Obama have anything to do with Bush?

         replyreport
   2. 61

      JON EWALLposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      In all fairness, it wasn't HARD to be RIGHT in my prediction concerning Obama's presidency, even in its first six months, so I'm going to make yet another prediction:
      
      OBAMA WILL PROBABLY NOT FINISH HIS 4-YEAR TERM, at least not in a Conventional way.
      
      He is such a political HORROR SHOW, and so detrimental to the USA and his Own Democratic Party, that the Democrats themselves will either FORCE him to Resign or figure out a way to have him thrown out.
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      
      THE PEOPLE will tire of his arrogance, inexperience and incompetence and push for his impeachment, who knows when and how.

      replyreport
      1. 62

         Harvey Stelmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         John,  Americans are slow to change, unless something affects them. If Health-Care fails, and the November election goes as it should you may be correct.

         replyreport
2. 67

   goldenpathposted 14 years ago

   I support all your comments.  My fear is the people.  The people were so easily swept away by this guy and, in all honesty, I don't see that true "awakening."  Sure, they may accept that they made a mistake, but there is no foundation, in the hearts and minds of the people, of principles from which the Founders built this country from.  The media, liberals, progressives and other ailing groups have mutilated these principles into ideals and thoughts that crush the human spirit, let alone a country. 
   
   Offer a man who will speak the true language of liberty from the heart and I will show you a man who will either correct the skewed path of the country, or a man who will not live to see his own inauguration.  It's sad but is probably true in today's society.  Today, it's the pure at heart who are trodden under foot.

   replyreport
   1. 62

      Harvey Stelmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      golden,
      
      It has taken way too long, but people are catching on. His own Party is beginning to implode, Republican's win all big elections, he passes nothing he wants and he will go downas one of the worst President's ever.

      replyreport
3. 61

   mikelongposted 14 years ago

   If I recall, the person you cite here, Galganov, also thinks that Quebec needs to be removed from Canada....
   
   It seems you source here has some serious issues....
   
   If you choose to identify with his ridiculousness feel free....

   replyreport
   1. 56

      Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      "the person you cite here, Galganov, also thinks that Quebec needs to be removed from Canada...."
      
      
      So do a lot of Quebecers

      replyreport
4. 61

   tony0724posted 14 years ago

   Apparently the Telegragh Co. UK is not on fire for Obama.
   
   http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne … Obama.html

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Kenrick Chatmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      The economic prospects for the UK are not that bright as well.

      replyreport
      1. 94

         Susana Sposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         No they're not, just like every other country on the planet involved in the global recession.

         replyreport
      2. 62

         Harvey Stelmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Ken, How can you say what you did and support Obama's plans for us. He is an intelligent idiot.

         replyreport
   2. 94

      Susana Sposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      
      
      You need to understand the the Telegraph is a tory paper (republican) and so are incredibly biased in their viewpoint. Like in America they're more interested in tax savings than helping the poor.

      replyreport
      1. 62

         Harvey Stelmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Susana, Haven't you noticed what Obama does overseas, and the lack of respect he gets? Most think he is a fool.

         replyreport
         1. 94

            Susana Sposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            
            
            No I haven't noticed that. Most of what I've read in the UK shows support for Obama and most think he's a positive force for the US. I think it probably depends on what side of the fence you sit on politically. If you are basically democrat you're going to like his approach, if your republican you're not - it's pretty simple. I can tell you that in the UK, Obama is far more respected than Bush ever was.

            replyreport
      2. 0

         EmpressFelicityposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Having just read that article, I find it's more notable for what it doesn't say than for what it *does* say.  For example, it implies that Obama's health reforms were an attempt to bring an American version of the NHS to the US.  They weren't - they were mostly about forcing people to have private health insurance.  None of the British media AFAICT has reported accurately about this particular subject. 
         
         As a British person I find our own media to be biased as hell - although not biased in favour of a particular party (because there isn't actually any difference between our two main political parties) but biased in favour of a sort of bureaucratic/nanny-state-knows-best consensus.  In one programme on BBC Radio 4 about the European Union a while back, the EU was affectionately referred to as "The Project" and was not subjected to any real critical examination.  (Perhaps this is not surprising when parts of the BBC are getting a massive loan from the EU.)
         
         Another example: last night on Channel 4 news there was an item about proposals for compulsory microchipping insurance for dog owners, in case their beloved pet pooch attacks someone.  (This measure would AFAIK apply to all dogs from Rottweilers to Yorkshire terriers, although it's supposedly designed to counteract the tendency of people on council estates to use their dogs as weapons.) Nowhere in this news item was there any questioning of the civil liberties implications, or of politicians' interest in the matter (I wouldn't mind betting there's some lobbying going on on behalf of the insurance industry here, and that certain politicians are going to end up with nice part time post-retirement directorships with insurance companies...)

         replyreport
         1. 81

            earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            I heard the dog one on BBC and found it to be excellent. They interviewed two morons with pit-bulls who complained that people were afraid of their dogs, and often left the footpath to avoid them. They admitted letting them off the leash in public places, and sounded like they shared a couple of brain cells.
            the argument against these dogs and there owners was best made by the owners themselves!
            They BBC made comparison with other counties laws, and provided a balanced live report.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               EmpressFelicityposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               I found this article on their website:
               
               http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8556195.stm
               
               
               and found it to be, admittedly, a bit better than the Channel 4 thing I watched on TV last night.  But it still doesn't question the need for the extra legislation, just the form it should take. 
               
               My original point still stands - there is plenty of bias in the British media, including the BBC.

               replyreport
               1. 81

                  earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  The page you looked at is not the same as the live interview I heard. It is a lot shorter, contains less detail, and leaves out the several discussions.
                  I stand by what I said. The BBC is not partisan on American politics, and I have not seen much of their coverage anywhere else.

                  replyreport
      3. 56

         Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         "Like in America they're more interested in tax savings than helping the poor."
         
         
         What do you mean by that?

         replyreport
5. 0

   Ghost32posted 14 years ago

   I do believe Obama will be a one term President, and he could be impeached in the meantime.  That's not beyond possibility.
   
   However, since Clinton, impeachment means nothing.  Slick Willie got impeached, shrugged, said, "Yeah, so?"...and just kept on a-politickin'.  I'm pretty sure Big O wouldn't go any more quietly into that dark night. 
   
   What does interest me greatly is the general prevalence of toe-the-line submissiveness shown by those House members who've admitted to fearing Pelosi's wrath more than their own sense of right and wrong.  That is a truly scary thing to behold.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      rented_haloposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I'm curious what offense Obama may have committed that you think is impeachable.  It strikes me as interesting that GW Bush was not impeached considering the misleading of the public in the run up to war, war crimes, torture, etc. but also as interesting that you think Obama has a chance of being impeached.  Obama may be very unpopular with some people, but being unpopular is not grounds for impeachment - the President must do something illegal or fail to uphold his Oath of Office in order to be impeached.  Have you heard of Obama doing something worthy of impeachment?
      Also, as far as I remember Clinton did not get impeached.  They did impeach him in the House, but not the Senate - and it takes both to actually impeach someone - I believe the House had a Republican majority at the time also.  Nixon was impeached - as he was removed from office, but Clinton was only "partially" or "incompletely" impeached since he was not removed from office and/or had no sanctions placed on him by the Legislature due to his actions -  not meaning to nitpick btw.  Cheers.

      replyreport
      1. 73

         Arthur Fontesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Nixon resigned.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            rented_haloposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            lol...  true - but he was impeached by both the house and senate yeah?

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               No.  He resigned before the vote.  He certainly would have been as well as criminally prosecuted if he stayed on.

               replyreport
            2. 73

               Arthur Fontesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Never impeached resigned before the vote..

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  rented_haloposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  well crap - when you're wrong, you're wrong...  and I'm wrong.
                  I thought Clinton was absolved in the House, but convicted in the Senate though, so doesn't that mean that he wasn't actually impeached?  Because I thought Nixon had one house of Congress already convict him, and he resigned prior to them voting in the 2nd...    I'm so thankful that I could embarrass myself in such a public forum... 

                  replyreport
                  1. 73

                     Arthur Fontesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     I just read a book on the Watergate scandal.  I am currently reading a book by Kissinger.  The only reason I knew this is because it was a subject I had just been studying.

                     replyreport
      2. 56

         Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Impeachment is a process, it does not mean removal from office. Clinton was impeached, Nixon was not.

         replyreport
   2. 62

      Harvey Stelmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Ghost, B.O. and Pelosi are as scary as they look. You have the Wicked Witch and Dumbo.

      replyreport
6. 81

   earnestshubposted 14 years ago

   I get my news from the BBC. Many sources, all on the ground in the countries they report from. It is balanced and not sensationalised.
   The view from here is quite different to the news Americans get about America.
   Your press takes sides, and you never get the truth, just a pile of crap to heap on the other side.

   replyreport
   1. 56

      Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      And you get "the truth"?

      replyreport
      1. 81

         earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I certainly don't get just the fifth rate crud that I see America gets. Yeh, it gets a lot closer to the truth.

         replyreport
         1. 56

            Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Uh-huh. And on what basis do you rate the crud?

            replyreport
            1. 59

               rented_haloposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               um...  how about the biases of FOX News and CNN and MSNBC?  American news is a lot of crap - all the media outlets are owned by corps - GE, Turner, Disney etc. . .  They just tell us what props up their ideas of how things should be - not necessarily reality.  At least earnest is looking through multiple portals to get a handle on things - we all should.

               replyreport
               1. 62

                  Harvey Stelmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  rented, Do you understand how to decifer what you hear?

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     rented_haloposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     Yeah, one of the cool things we got learned about in college...  critical thinking, questioning sources and source motives etc.  It's not always obvious what bias is present in some news casts while it is more so in others.  Often times pieces of information are completely omitted from the report which changes the tone of the entire story.  Virtually no one covered what was going on outside the RNC & DNC with people being arrested en masse including many journalists - like Amy Goodman from Democracy Now...  The fact that police were arresting people prior to any problems, but based on the suspicion that certain people might cause problems was never reported on except by small, indie media...  I'm completely digressing, but my point is that sometimes the omission of information rather than the portrayal of it also reveals biases.  If people don't sample multiple media sources from different levels of the stream they might be completely ignorant of the entire picture.

                     replyreport
         2. 62

            Harvey Stelmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Earnie, Is the BBC reliable?

            replyreport
            1. 81

               earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               The BBC does not seem to do partisan politics.

               replyreport
               1. 56

                  Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Everyone does
                  
                  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/pers … -bias.html

                  replyreport
                  1. 81

                     earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     written by Damien Thompson, a conservative religionist!
                     I knew it! No bias there!

                     replyreport
                     1. 56

                        Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        I told you: Bias everywhere
                        
                        
                        http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2008/0 … 215543465/

                        replyreport
                  2. 94

                     Susana Sposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     
                     
                     The telegraph reporting about bias in the media is a joke. The telegraph is one of the most biased publications out there, and so is this report.

                     replyreport
                     1. 56

                        Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        As I said - everywhere

                        replyreport
                        1. 94

                           Susana Sposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           
                           
                           Not sure about everywhere. In the UK the news on TV is not allowed to be biased towards any particular political party - it is against the broadcasting code. http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/codes/bcode/undue/
                           
                           If they are found to be biased, they can be fined or even taken off air.

                           replyreport
                           1. 56

                              Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                              "In the UK the news on TV is not allowed to be biased"
                              
                              
                              LOL! That's funny.

                              replyreport
                              1. 94

                                 Susana Sposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                 
                                 
                                 Are you in the UK and watch UK news? You may not believe it, but political bias on news and documentaries is dealt with pretty harshly. I was watching a popular documentary last night (Panorama) and before it started there was an announcement about a complaint that had been upheld because they had not represented all sides of an argument. it doesn't happen that often, but when it does it's challenged. Do they have a similar system where you are?

                                 replyreport
                        2. 81

                           earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           So you are admitting that the link you posted is crud?

                           replyreport
   2. 62

      Harvey Stelmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Earnie, Evidentally you don't know all.

      replyreport
7. 91

   habeeposted 14 years ago

   That's true, Earnest. That's why I watch CNN, FOX, ABC, CBS, and occasionally MSNBC. And I read A LOT of news from many sources. I feel that's the only way to ferret out at least a tad of truth!

   replyreport
   1. 62

      Harvey Stelmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      habee, That's a very good answer.

      replyreport
8. 61

   mikelongposted 14 years ago

   Compare the American media coverage of the attempted coup in Venezuela a few years back:
   
   1) American media claimed that Chavez supporters were firing guns against protesting people, who wanted him out...
   
   Reality: The full videos, from more angles, show Chavez' supporters being fired upon by military-police snipers from an otherwise empty street...with Chavez' supporters firing back....Of course, the American media didn't show these views..even though they had the footage...
   
   2) The coup leader, backed by the United States, claimed on CNN and Fox that he was in the palace, and that everything was fine, contrary to the reports that Chavez had returned from being held against his will and that he (Chavez) had retaken control of the government...
   
   Reality: I watched video of Chavez and his cabinet listening to this news from the presidential palace...where the coup leader was not.....and when Chavez tried to get news out that he had retaken the seat that he had been voted into, these American news affiliates didn't run the story until later....
   
   
   By looking at multiple sources, truth can be found...
   
   An article in the newspaper today spoke of a massacre of Christians in Nigeria, and it points to sectarian violence...
   
   But, I don't look to their news....I know that the Ogoni, and many others who sit on land that Shell and others want, are Christians...
   
   Nigeria was a British colony after all....and that Shell has had no problems having people like the Ogoni killed....which is spoken of in an article that I have written here...
   
   The truth?
   
   I think its far more than the "sectarian" violence that American media focuses on......while it ignores the world record 15 million dollar settlement that Shell recently paid out for the crimes it committed against the Ogoni...
   
   And to think that the Ogoni are an isolated incident is utter foolishness....
   
   
   "News"..........not something to be taken as fact...

   replyreport
9. 59

   rented_haloposted 14 years ago

   The author of the Canadian news piece if a very far-right conservative member of the Canadian press.  How is that any different from citing a piece written by O'Reilly or Beck or Limbaugh?  You can find LOTS of people who think Obama is a terrible president, think he's mediocre, and think that he's the bee's knees.  Op-Ed pieces don't really prove anything - they just show that someone out there thinks something...
   
   Obama has done some positive things for those of us not on the wealthy spectrum, but he's also fallen through on almost all his campaign promises too.  He's been hamstrung by his own party who isn't cooperating with what he wanted to do, and he's neglected many things that he said he intended to do - but he's also got a lot on his plate.
   
   I believe much of the international backlash aimed at Obama is due to him backpedaling on his promises, as well as being not as liberal in practice as he portrayed himself during the election.  Much of the international world is more progressive and more towards the political center than America - where we have our "liberals" being rather conservative.  In other countries their left-wing is actually on the left.  Here in America many of those "leftists" are still backing corporations over citizens and still engaging in imperial wars where leftists from other countries would consider those actions not-so leftist. 
   
   We must not kid ourselves - Obama is no socialist as many claim.  He's a Keynesian Capitalist.  Bush was a Friedman capitalist - although I doubt GWB knew enough about economics to cite Friedman as an influence.  Obama has also expanded the "War on Terror" and we'll probably enter Pakistan (with more than drones) and possibly Yemen before his term(s) are over - things that go against his overall campaign message of discussion over aggression.
     I am not completely disagreeing with the author of the original piece, but more with his reasoning.  Anyhow, just my two cents.

   replyreport
   1. 62

      Harvey Stelmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      rented,
      
      Obama always says he has consulted with the finest minds in any particular field; he never names them.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         rented_haloposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I question your use of "never"...  I'd prefer if you said "almost never" - simply because it would make it more believable...  Did our previous President always talk about who he talked to or where he got his ideas?  Has any President done so?  I'm not giving Obama a by - I don't think he's the greatest President ever - far from it, but he's a major step up from our previous one and he also was hip-deep in crap when he took office, so I do cut him a little slack... 
         Considering your comment, I am wondering what you're point was...  with all due respect - I understand that might sound rude, but I don't intend it to be.  Are you suggesting that Obama is hiding his sources because they would make us uncomfortable?

         replyreport
10. 56

    Sab Ohposted 14 years ago

    Everything written contains bias. The 'crap' part is on the reader if he is too lazy to think for himself.

    replyreport
11. 61

    Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years ago

    Sad...
    
    Pathetic...

    replyreport
12. 60

    Doug Hughesposted 14 years ago

    The teabaggers ran 5 candidates in Texas primaries last week. All 5 lost. The popularity for the GOP is still lower across the board than the POTUS or democrats in Congress. It's a little early for a GOP victory dance - They still comprise 20% of registered voters.
    
    Obama was dealt a tough hand going in. The economy was in a nose dive  - the banks and auto industry in near collapse after a trillion dollar tax cut for the wealthy - an unnescessary trillion dollar oil grab in Iraq. We are pulling out of that - slowly - but there was a lot of momentum to overcome.
    
    It will be 2 years before Obama is in the next election. As in every election, the outcome will depend on who he's running against. We will see where the economy, employment and domestic programs put the president and the democratic party.

    replyreport
    1. 56

       Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       "The teabaggers"
       
       Don't you thnk it's a little childish to resort to silly name calling like that?

       replyreport
       1. 0

          Kenrick Chatmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          You (GOP supporters) can dish it out but you cannot take it?
          
          What about the "socialist" labels or stereotyping of the poor as "lazy" individuals who want handouts?

          replyreport
          1. 56

             Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             That's some great 3rd grade logic. You could go ahead and answer my question directly, then we can talk about other things.

             replyreport
       2. 59

          rented_haloposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Sab Oh, "Teabaggers" is a self-applied nickname for those people...  They had Tea Bagging parties last year and lots of people - including themselves - have called them Teabaggers...  I think they like the nickname as they see themselves as Teabagging Obama or the Dems with their Tea Bagging Parties...  IMO

          replyreport
13. 72

    thisisoliposted 14 years ago

    Erm, the european view is much more Obama friendly than Bush friendly.
    
    Bush came across as a dangerous joke, I don't know a single person that was not glad to see him be replaced by Obama.
    
    I have personally been to most western european countries, and can safely say that Bush was not respected in any of them.
    
    Obama has yet to prove whether he is a good leader or not, but it would be damned hard for him to do as bad as his predecessor.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       EmpressFelicityposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Bush was crap, but I haven't seen any evidence that Obama is better.
       
       And I think that both of them were/are figureheads anyway.  As are all Western political "leaders".

       replyreport
    2. 62

       Harvey Stelmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       this,
       
       He is seen as weak, and what he is doing to us with the debt worries them. They don't want us to be an Iceland or a Greece, that would kill their economy.

       replyreport
       1. 79

          Sufidreamerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Obama made a very good impression on the Greeks, with the way that he respectfully spoke to the Greek Prime Minster, Georges Papandreou, and Archbishop Demetrios.
          
          President Obama is well liked here - Greece is only a small country, but the Greeks do not see Obama, or the US, as weak. They see the US as strong friends.
          
          I do agree with the rest of your post, Harvey - we do hope that the US economy recovers. Whether Obama will do that, I have no idea - over to you

          replyreport
14. 81

    earnestshubposted 14 years ago

    Bush was well hated in Australia too, by almost everyone. We saw the WMD bulldust and the way he dealt with it. Blair and our former Prime Minister John Howard were chucked out for the same reason.

    replyreport
15. 0

    ralwusposted 14 years ago

    Heroing is one of the shortest-lived professions there is. Harvey, that is just one man's opinion. It's all politics. And being a democracy, run by the people, we are the only nation in the world that has to keep a government four years, no matter what it does.

    replyreport
    1. 62

       Harvey Stelmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       ral,
       
       We don't have to keep a President for four years. My relatives in Spain, England and Italy are my other sources. I hope we don't turn into Greece, and China doesn't  want to buy our paper anymore.
       
       The economies of Europe are hurting badly, and they need us to be stable.

       replyreport
       1. 81

          earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Australia has 4 year terms.

          replyreport
16. 62

    David Bowmanposted 14 years ago

    What I have come to notice about most people's opinions about politics, or anything else for that matter, is that they are often a result of what is known as 'confirmation bias' - which the Wikipedia article on the subject defines as "A tendency for people to prefer information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses, independently of whether they are true."
    
    Here is the full article on that subject if anyone is interested in further reading.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
    
    Pundits and talk show hosts will invariably have biases - ergo - people who depend on sources that lean to one side of the political spectrum will undoubtedly form opinions corresponding to that point-of-view.
    
    Sometimes, things are not so clear-cut. We should all be skeptical of the media and the pundits whatever their political leanings may be. Maybe people should start thinking about and evaluating these things for themselves instead of allowing others to do it for them.

    replyreport
17. 61

    Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years ago

    Ahhh, sunrise, cup of coffee, TK nonsense....
    
    The day begins.

    replyreport
18. 72

    getitriteposted 14 years ago

    Harvey,
    I guess you were rich, and felt very secure under the previous administration.  It seems that being one of the rank-and-file, my life sucks no matter which party is in power.  And if Obama is impeached or is a one term president, most of our lives won't change much.  The system itself sucks!

    replyreport
    1. 62

       Harvey Stelmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       get,
       
       I started my life in a furnished room and was lucky to get into the projects. Yup rich! I've made my own way since school. Sure things are bad, with our present leader, things are going to get worse.
       
       We need to fix the FED, and follow the Constitution. These idiots just don't get it!
       
       I hope things get better for you.

       replyreport
       1. 72

          getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          
          
          Yeah, I understand. I was being sarcastic about the rich part.
          I have made my own way since school, as well.  I joined the Marines right after High School, and spent six years defending the country.  After the Marines, I obtained a degree with my GI bill, while working a full-time job.   
          
          Don't get me wrong, there have been good streaks, but something always happens--like industries having to reduce the workforce, or companies having to shut down, or losing a job due to illness, or not having child-care.
          
          I think this country has seen its way through some tough times, and I want to believe we'll get through this one.

          replyreport
19. 68

    MikeNVposted 14 years ago

    Foreign Leaders have ZERO respect for the current administration.  It's laughable.
    
    Just today more stories of Israel taunting the Administration... and they are supposed allies.

    replyreport
    1. 62

       Harvey Stelmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Mike,
       
       They are just doing unto others.

       replyreport
    2. 56

       Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       "Foreign Leaders have ZERO respect for the current administration."
       
       
       What? Even after all of his apologizing, bowing and scraping, and rhetoric diminishing America's place in the world? How could that be? Are you telling me that showing weakness doesn't really earn you respect?

       replyreport