why so much criticism of barack obama?

Jump to Last Post 1-48 of 48 discussions (252 posts)

62
pisean282311posted 13 years ago
why is so much criticism of obama on hub and various web blogs?...is he victim of over expectation or is it they he has seriously messed up things?
reply report
1. 65
  alternate poetposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  He is the focus of an unprecedented attack from right wing christians, it is his own fault for not being white, redneck christian warmongering moron like the last President.
  reply report
  62
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  interesting..
  reply report
  0
  Ana Louisposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  pisean, don't let liberal bias or conservative discontent shape your own conclusions. The best way to find an answer to your question is to inform your self on the issues...pro and con, and try to determine the truth for yourself.
  
  Obama is being called to task over government policy, NOT HIS RACE.
  
  alternate poet is not only wrong but a good example of liberal racism on display. And as always there are the slurs and name calling that says much about the objectivity of his views.
  
  Pleas do not form you opinions and ideas from one source of information. No one side or person has the perfect view of everything.
  reply report
  63
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Obama is being called to task over government policy, NOT HIS RACE."
  
  True, he's being criticized for taking too long to dig the country out of the deepest recession since the thirties left him by Bush's "government policies."
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  rofl
  reply report
  65
  alternate poetposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You are saying that Bush was not a redneck, war-mongering right wing moron ? He doesn't come from Texas, he didn't rush of and attack Iraq in response to the 7/11 political advantage that Bin Laden handed him on a plate, even though Iraq had absolutley nothing to do with it? Oh, maybe you mean he isn;t right wing ?
  reply report
  82
  rachellrobinsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  7/11 is a gas station. I think you mean 9/11, and for the record have you looked into how many Democrats issued statements prior to the Iraq invasion that 1. supported it and 2. agreed that there were WMD's in Iraq?
  reply report
  79
  ReuVeraposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  he is as white as he is black (50%-50%), so this is a lame excuse.
  He is not competent, that's why! He is a snob, arrogant, condescending, evasive, a liar, a bad politician, butt-licker, oh. What else?
  I'd prefer no matter what color or religion President that will be respecting His country first, be good for His country first. Good education does not mean good intelligence.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well-said, ReuVera!
  reply report
  63
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Why don't you tell us which of his policies you disagree with instead of spewing invective and hatred? Are you upset that he dragged Netanyahu to the negotiating table with Palestine?
  reply report
  79
  ReuVeraposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I suppose it will be a long list (starting with banks bail-outs, apology tour, and more). I am not really into politics and I am just a person. So, my judgement is more from the point of view of decency, respect and intelligence, that any leader should posses and Mr.Obama does not.
  Not saying anything that a leader needs and experience. One cannot give if he doesn't have it.
  His way of using slang language in his speeches does not appeal to me either. The President's speech should be highly intelligent speech always, not "a flee market" type speech.
  Did you mention Netaniyahu because I am an Israeli? I am an American too, you know. Obama is not the first to try to be a middleman in this matter and history knows at least two certain examples when the negotiations were sabotaged by the Palestinian side. But let's not got into this aspect.
  
  And the question was, why he is criticized.....I answered it from a personal point of view, not as a political observer. My opinion is that Mr.Obama personally does not qualify for his position from many aspects. That's all.
  reply report
  63
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The bank bailouts occurred under Bush, before Obama's inauguration.
  
  What on earth do you find indecent about Obama? He strikes me as a most decent president, husband and father.
  
  Occasionally Obama uses slang, but he is more often criticized for talking like an elitist Harvard professor. You can't have it both ways. Most people consider him a highly eloquent and persuasive speaker, certainly much more so than George Bush who had trouble uttering a complete sentence with a subject and a verb.
  
  You are entitled to your opinion however uninformed and unconvincing.
  reply report
  69
  Abecedarianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Kind of reminds me of the Chris Rock on HBO show, when he said, if a White man becomes president, it's because he's a smart individual with good ideas, etc. When a black man runs for president and he gives a speech, people say, oh, he speaks so well. What the hell did they expect?
  I think what is wrong with Americans right now, is that they were running scared after Bush and they wanted someone to fix it and fix it quick. Obama was intelligent and had many good ideas of what needed to be done. They knew McCain and Palin wouldn't and couldn't fix the problem because they were talking about continuing down the same path and had no new ideas. Americans quickly voted for the quick fix. Obama became president and he didn't fix things as quickly as the people wanted it. Although he did make 506 promises of which he's kept so far 120+ and is working on the others, but that's not good enough because it didn't happen "yesterday" and we're still waiting. We are a spoiled society. When we went to war, we flew our flags and said we support our troops, but what did any single one of us give up for them. Not a damn thing. In previous wars, people united and worked to help each other out. Today we bicker over who is right and who is wrong and like the politicians in Washington, we don't do a damn thing, but complain and expect it to get fixed.
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I think that saying "Bush did the same thing, thus you should not insult Obama" is not a good response.
  
  Bush stunk. Clinton Stunk... I could go all the way back to lincoln and make a good argument for each one stinking.
  
  They are all trying to steal the people's money and then funnel it to their politically well connected friends. Wake up, that's what government does.
  
  Always.
  reply report
  69
  Abecedarianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Wow, it's like having a discussion with one of my children. I NEVER said that Bush did the same thing, for one. For two, I never said not to insult Obama.
  They were never up against the same things. When Bush took office, we had a SURPLUS, now we have a trillion dollar DEFICIT.
  I don't need to be told what government does, I deal with it every day and you are rightfully agitated with the system, but believe it or not, NOT ALL politicians are crooks, there are still a handful that are there working for you, but ignoring the facts and voting solely on party lines is what has created a mess. People are being elected to office that have no moral ethic, Charlie Rangel, Christine O'Donnell, Spizter, Paterson of NY, they are being pushed by party line, not their stance on issues. This is the most "issueless" election year I've ever seen. It's all rhetoric and no concrete plans. NO debates, so we can't hear from the horses mouth what they'll do and how they'll do it.
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  it IS like having a conversation with a child...
  
  I never claimed you did - if you look closely, i'm responding to Deeds
  
  Here's a quote from Deeds: "The bank bailouts occurred under Bush, before Obama's inauguration. ", if we take this alongside the fact that Obama DID indeed bailout some companies, we will see quickly that Deeds' argument is that "bush did it, so Obama can, too".
  
  ...
  
  ... so I'm glad we got that out of the way. Thanks for going nuts over nothing.
  reply report
  60
  Ravaged Nationposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Funny that you talk of Obama's eloquence and Bush II's fumbling with the English language. I prefer a man who speaks his mind rather than a man who is well spoken reading from a teleprompter.
  reply report
  63
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know what the big deal is about the teleprompter. Every president in recent history has sued them. Same for television newsmen and other public speakers. One reason for presidents to use teleprompters is because they are frequently speaking about sensitive issues where a slip can cause national or international repercussions. Biden speaks off the cuff and fairly often gets himself in trouble. Maybe he's the one who should be using a teleprompter??
  reply report
  60
  Vladimir Uhriposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  My grandma taught me to be polite and honor an authority. I try very hard. Regarding of Mr. Obama, is very difficult for me. We do have an authority to vote and when I first met him I was impressed with his talk in Nashville. I thought I will vote for him. But after I made homework I changed my mind.
  When I lived in Socialistic country on the beginning socialists took all weapons from us. Now read the press it just happened now, ignoring Constitutional amendment. Weapons do not kill. Only who use it. The cars do not kill. Keeping them in garage does not kill anyone.
  He non qualified try to run entire country in everything. His duty are only two: defend our country and Constitution of USA. Thats all. For this one not need many qualification. Any lawyer can do it.
  There is long list to say. Nobody in our homes spending money which do not exist.
  The socialists and communists want to distributing wealth. Thats not part of presidency of USA. Just fallow the press.
  reply report
  63
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Just curious, what press are you following?
  reply report
  60
  soldout1posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  According to Jim Crow one drop of black blood makes you completely black. Not to mention the skin color. In America the color of a mans skin determines his Nationality. This is true whether you acknowledge it or not. His father was a black man, this is considerer to be the bloodline even by Physicans. Oh yes it is his race do not use his words to hide your own racial hatred. Bush was a so call full Blooded White American, and every Prisident before him.They have brought this country thus far. One black man enters office and now its all his fault. You people' White America so to speak have some nerve. If Whit America had shared some of the burden in years pass may be the balance of this Chaos could be legitmately equal. This is your moment to do what White America have always done. Destroy any positive image of other races. Thinking your race is the anwser to the problem rather then the cause of this great economic desaster. People Please. This man has not even been given an honest chance. Yes he is black ,this is according to the bloodline' and you know it. And as aways this is your moment to breathe out cruelty as history continues to note.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, it's YOU who "has some nerve" accusing someone else of racism in your exceptionally-racist, insulting post.
  reply report
  60
  Vladimir Uhriposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  you really have to examine your ...
  Everything is going down hill and you blame others for his ideology and actions. Hm.
  reply report
  60
  Vladimir Uhriposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  alternate poet.
  you should have examine...
  Everything is going downhill and you accusing other for his ideology and actions. Hm.
  reply report
  0
  Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Let us not forget, this version of the Republican party began when the civil rights issue was at the forefront and southern Democrats flooded the party, like Reagan. At its very base, its fundamental cause, they are bigots and nothing more.
  reply report
2. 61
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Because he hates America and wants to destroy it!
  reply report
  63
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Where did you get such a ridiculous idea? You must watch nothing but Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Rush Limpbaugh.
  reply report
  87
  rebekahELLEposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  this ridiculous statement is not even worthy of a response.. why did I comment? geez..
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Really? How so? Look at what he's done so far.
  reply report
  63
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Do you even know "what he's done so far?" Glenn Beck hasn't covered that.
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The list is soo long, but there's no point in going over it with liberals because you all believe that more government is good, that individuals are too stupid to make the right choices and we need government to do it for us, that free speech only includes views that align with the left everything else is hate speech and racist, that success isn't fair and deserves to be punished their wealth taken away and distributed to those failures and freeloaders of society, like Sharpton said ... "The dream was to make everything equal in everybody's house!"
  
  Is there any doubt Obama believes that too? I think NOT!
  reply report
  63
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Taxes have not increased for anyone since Barack Obama took office. More empty, hate-filled generalities.
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Taxes might not have gone up much...
  
  ... but spending sure has.
  
  Now, where does government get money? by 1) stealing it from its subjects, 2) counterfeiting it, or 3) borrowing from elsewhere.
  
  So, as you can see, NO MATTER WHAT, as spending increases hardships will ensue. It is impossible to think differently: spending = theft from the people (unless it's voluntarily lent to it, but every dollar has to be repaid, and it is usually done with interest. And the simple fact that the government is doing the lending means that the industry they're investing in is a bad investment)
  reply report
  69
  Abecedarianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Mr. Rogers, once again, spouting anti-government sentiment. Where were you when Bush, Jr. took office? Did you vote? THIS IS AMERICA. There are no "subjects", that's just rhetoric.
  WE HAD A SURPLUS AT THE BEGINING OF THIS MESS. Bush pushed for a Prescription Program that cost billions and he didn't fund it. He said he wasn't worried about how he was gonna pay for it "right now". He then started not 1 but 2 WARS and he wasn't sure where the funding was gonna come from, but by golly, he was gonna have his WARS. After taking money from Social Security, Education, Health Care, Transportation and every other penny he could strip, we ended up with a HUGE DEFICIT. Guess who gets that tacked on to his budget? THE INCOMING PRESIDENT. Now the new president has to still run the country, that's without money because we all want something for nothing. We want "help" when we need it, but we don't want to pay for it. Basically, they loaded the wagon, but don't have the horses to pull the load.
  reply report
  60
  Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "WE HAD A SURPLUS AT THE BEGINING OF THIS MESS."
  
  Myths constantly repeated are still myths.
  reply report
  69
  Abecedarianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  NO WONDER YOU LOOK SO ANGRY--IT'S CALLED LIVING DENIAL.
  reply report
  60
  DevLinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Go look it up. 1999 stock market crash on tech stocks, america already in a deficit. The country's been in the red since the 70's. We had this thing going on. Viet Nam. Cost a bit. Nixon froze prices, and shut down the government for lack of money.
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  There are subjects. That's what people who get ruled over are called. Deal with it.
  
  Where was I when Bush Jr. came into power? I was ... let's see... 16? 17? one of the two. So... no! I didn't vote! BUT! I did hate him with a passion. The patriot act, his not protecting us on 9/11, his launching of 2 unnecessary wars... etc etc.
  
  I don't understand why you're so crazy about demanding that we had a budget surplus... What is the point of having a surplus? Let's see... that means that we were taxed MORE than was needed, and that there was a high incentive for the government to spend like drunken sailors.
  
  I'm trying, also, to understand why "insulting bush" leads directly to "Obama is awesome". This forum is about "why the hate towards obama" and you're insulting bush non stop. Good job on that one.
  
  And finally, ultimately, your comments show us that you've never actually bothered to Comprehend the Constitution. The simple claim that the president is in control of spending is complete nonsense. Please re-read article 2 of the Constitution for the 5 or so powers that the president ACTUALLY has.
  reply report
  0
  Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Rogers, you are clueless. The government doesn't need to counterfeit money, as less than 5% of the money supply is in tangible form. Get a clue. Now we know you don't believe in taxes at all, nor government at all for that matter, however, your baseless rants show a juvenile understanding of the nature of this world. Spending has gone up because we were in the worst recession since the Great Depression and every country on the planet operates under a Keynesian theory of deficit spending and you know that, being that you are Hayek cultist. You don't get out of a recession by not putting money into it, limiting the exchange, and ignoring it. Go play in your sandbox.
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ... jeez, you're nasty
  
  If the money isn't in physical form, but the amount of money, M3, is still increasing (i have the charts in some of my hubs - judging from your reply to me, you aren't interested in civil discussion), then that simply means that the people who have control of the, supposed, 95% (your stat) of the non-physical money, are simply adding "0"s to bank accounts digitally.
  
  This is still counterfeiting. Deal with it. If money that didn't exist yesterday exists today that didn't exist yesterday, then it's counterfeiting (and yes, I'm aware that gold and silver coins would "come out of the nothingness", but it takes a much larger effort to do so).
  
  I find it disgusting that you argue that "making money worth less" is how to fix an economy. I'm gonna buy silver.
  reply report
  0
  Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  First of all, yes, I am nasty. I am tired of people like you. I wish I could extend more of a branch, be more civil...but unfortunately, I have spent 8 years of Bush and 2 years of Obama debating people like you in a civil manner, only for them to do things like define something without the use of a dictionary. Your statement that those who create, print, the money, by basically printing it, are counterfeiting. You think you can invent definitions from your couch. You don't get to define words. We already have dictionaries.
  coun·ter·feit (kountr-ft)
  v. coun·ter·feit·ed, coun·ter·feit·ing, coun·ter·feits
  v.tr.
  1. To make a copy of, usually with the intent to defraud; forge: counterfeits money.
  2. To make a pretense of; feign: counterfeited interest in the story.
  v.intr.
  1. To carry on a deception; dissemble.
  2. To make fraudulent copies of something valuable.
  adj.
  1. Made in imitation of what is genuine with the intent to defraud: a counterfeit dollar bill.
  2. Simulated; feigned: a counterfeit illness.
  n.
  A fraudulent imitation or facsimile.
  
  PLAIN AND SIMPLE - if it not fraudulent creation of money, nor is it counterfeiting if the people who are tasked legally with creating and controlling the money supply, create more. Your argument that if any money comes from anywhere that wasn't there yesterday, that it is counterfeiting is like saying you are stealing when you pick up your own wallet. Now, if you would by chance want to engage in a civil discussion, actually debate something...then what a breath of fresh air. I will apologize for my venom and attempt to refrain from allowing my personal frustration seep through. However, don't use 8yr old logic as the basis of arguments and we'll go from there. Deal? You be a grown boy and I'll be grown, and we'll both not call each other names and you don't define words on your own. There is an outlined set of parameters that we operate on in life, and dictionaries are one of them.
  reply report
  0
  GladYaMetMe!posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  You can't teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and only irritates the pigs.
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So why is it ok for bernanke to print money but it's not ok for me to print money?
  
  Your argument: the government says it's ok.
  
  Well... I don't even need to put an argument here, do I? Slavery was governmentally agreed upon... Gay marriage isn't allowed because of government...
  
  And if we actually read the constitution, you'll see that paper money isn't even allowed. Check article 1 sections 8-10.
  reply report
  63
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "And if we actually read the constitution, you'll see that paper money isn't even allowed. Check article 1 sections 8-10."
  
  That argument was settled long ago between Washington and Hamilton, on the one hand, and Jefferson and Madison on the other. Jefferson and Madison lost the argument.
  
  The Constitution isn't like a cook book with precise recipes. It has been amended and interpreted and re-interpreted by the Supreme Court to meet new circumstances. The Brown v. Topeka Board of Education decision. which declared de jure school segregation unconstitutional, was the most notable example of this. There are plenty of others.
  report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The Constitution is NOT a cookbook.
  
  It was written in plain English, and everyone can read it.
  
  It clearly states that Congress does not have the power to print money, and the States are deprived the power as well.
  
  On top of that The States are not allowed to even accept ANYTHING but gold and silver coin a money.
  
  And on top of that, States can't COIN money, but the federal government can.
  
  I am REALLY failing to see how any liberal can even support the claim that the Supreme Court's ruling on paper money can even hope to be Constitutional.
  
  This money issue is a 100% flawless example of the Supreme Court being WRONG.
  report
  69
  Abecedarianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Come on now, give us your list. I'll give you a couple of days to look stuff up if you need to before I check back. If we felt that way about free speech, we'd "deny" all the comments that we feel are stupid, but we don't. I grew up dirt poor and now I'm not, but I would rather redistribute what I have to help someone than to call them failures and freeloaders. We are all "gods" children isn't that what Conservatives are suppose to be about? I don't care if a man on the street is a drunk or an addict or maybe someone who is just down on his luck, I would gladly give them money if it helped get them through another day, no questions asked. Would you? I doubt it. That's the difference between a Democrat and a Republican. We give because we care, you complain because you have to.
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  the thing about donating your money to the less fortunate is that you would be doing so voluntarily .
  
  If you give money via a government program, it is NOT voluntary. Thus it can NOT be called "giving" or "charity" or "donations". It can only, at best, be called "aggressive redistribution of wealth"
  reply report
  55
  ratdogposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  pay your taxes or leave-I am tired of people crying about it-nothing is for free not even living in the united states.
  reply report
  69
  Abecedarianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  *He passed Health Care Reform
  *He passed Benefits Bill to the troops so that our soldiers coming home from Iraq with PSTD don't kill themselves at home but get treatment. The Audey Murphy Hospital for Veterans in San Antonio is being expanded for better health care for those Veterans who have given all to this country.
  *Created a Forclosure Fund for Home Owners
  *Established a credit card bill of rights.
  *Expanded loan programs for small business
  *Expanded the SCHIP program so school children will be insured while they are away at school or on school activities.
  *Directed military leaders to end the war in Iraq.
  *Restored funding to the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (anti-drug,gang forces) which was cut by 83% under Bush as gang violence increased.
  *Established a special crime program in the New Orleans area.
  *Funding to rebuild school in New Orleans.
  *Appointed the first American Indian as a policy advisor for Native Americans.
  * Banned lobbyist gifts to executive employees.
  * Investing in all types of alternative energy, to cut back on oil dependency. Our city now has a field of solar panels that will run 90,000 homes. Windmills are going up all over West Texas for wind energy. Our utilities have already come down.
  Among many other things.
  All you can spout is the same tired comments with nothing to back them up.
  reply report
  86
  livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Great list. Obama's not perfect, but he's a helluva lot better than the alternative, and he actually gets a lot of what he promises done.
  
  The opposition is simply hoping that if they repeat a lie often enough, people will start to believe it. It does tend to work.
  reply report
  72
  Jillian Barclayposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Love Abecedarian! Just the facts-no name calling or trying to demean others. I am a big fan of Abecedarian's hubs!
  reply report
  79
  ReuVeraposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, just a list. Some of those points are oh so much untrue.... One glaring mistake is the notion that Mr. Obama "directed military leaders to end the war in Iraq." Sorry, absolutely factually incorrect. It's a pity we can't give here links, otherwise I would send you to read the hubs of our fellow hubber with lots of proves how Obama takes credit to something he didn't do.
  And only time will show the long lasting bad bad effect of this healthcare plan.
  As for other myths.... again, it's a pity we can't give links here to naked information, but if you want to believe what you believe, continue doing it...
  Wall Street Journal experts don’t seem to be saying it’s Bush’s fault to for the massive deficit this country is now facing and Bush’s policies definitely aren’t the cause of our current failing economy, double digit jobless rate and projected bleak economic future. Experts don't think all this was Bush's fault. But if you know better, oh well.
  Intelligence? When I was at school in Soviet Union, we were taught that there are 50 states in USA. Obama managed to visit 57 states....Oh, wait.... "FIFTY SEVEN no FIFTY NINE states of America"?
  Anyway, I don't hate Obama. Many people, real patriots of America, hate him. I am a patriot too, but I don't hate him. I just consider that he is not the right one to be a President. I am not giving any alternatives. Have a nice day.
  reply report
  82
  rachellrobinsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Don't you mean he crammed health care reform down our throats, even though the majority of American's did not want it?
  reply report
  55
  ratdogposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  that is a lie, majority of americans , supported the idea they were confused about the policies
  reply report
  82
  rachellrobinsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  All of the major polling places like Rasmusen when they conducted polls showed that the majority of Amreicans did not support the health care bill the way it was written esp. the part about tax payers funding abortions. Now since you think that I am lying, plase tell me where you are getting your facts from?
  reply report
  70
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Here and I thought that LL was making fun of the right-wing party-line. Turns out she was serious, which is even more funny.
  reply report
3. 63
  Greek Oneposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  He is a black communist Muslim whose is bent on destroying the country by making sure Americans don't die because they are sick.
  
  He is anti-American, anti-God, anti-everything.
  
  He destroying the Constitution
  
  He eats baby seals for dinner.
  
  Did I mention he is black??
  reply report
  78
  lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  EXACTLY Greek One! You nailed that one to a TEE!!!
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  whoa whoa whoa
  
  I hate obama, and I'm not a racist. Let's not go there.
  
  He's spending our wealth into oblivion, and he's ignoring/destroying the constitution (not that this is new, but he still is).
  
  I don't ONLY hate Obama, though, so it isn't really worth pointing to him only to insult. Any congressman/woman who votes to increase spending is an enemy. Any Justice who legislates from the bench (just about all of them) is an enemy to liberty.
  reply report
  63
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Half white, half black, except for those who still espouse the white racist "one drop" theory.
  reply report
4. 66
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  A little from column A, a little from column B, and a little from column C, column C being the fact that he is not actually the only person with power in American politics, and that a huge amount of what a president has to do is juggle competing interests of all sorts.
  reply report
5. 0
  SirDentposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  All presidents have been criticised. GW Bush, BIll Clinton, GH Bush, Ronnie Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson and so forth. It is the way things are.
  reply report
  77
  BDazzlerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Wonderful thing about our country ... we can still gripe and complain as much as we want! (And the government ignores us as much as they want!)
  reply report
6. 50
  eaglepitcherposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Obama gives us ample amunition every time he opens his mouth, goes on vacation, plays golf, or has to inform us "he is the President of the United States". The Presidency is not a training ground for someone without any administrative and real world experience. Even Carter, who many of us feel was the worst of the worst, had real world experience before he took office. The pandering to the unions and Obama's obvious goals of destroying capitalism are other areas for criticism, as are his desires to circumvent the Constitution and the checks and balances of our three branches of government. Need I say more?
  reply report
7. 61
  iskra1916posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Quite simple.
  
  It's that American phenomena of R & R.
  
  ...Race and rednecks!
  reply report
8. 44
  Mikeydoesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Just like every president, the other party is going to cream him. Remember how bad GWB got it?
  reply report
  63
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  True, but Bush II started a foolish war in Iraq, neglected the effort against Al Qaida in Afghanistan, cut taxes for the richest Americans which resulted in a huge deficit, violated the priciple of separation of church and state, allowed oil, coal, mining, drug, and insurance companies excessive influence over public policy, spied on American citizens, tortured prisoners in violation of the Geneva Convention and military policy, etc, etc, ad nausaum.
  reply report
66
Flightkeeperposted 13 years ago
Because he's incompetent.
reply report
1. 62
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  what is your reference point..comparing with bill clinton or regan or senior bush..at least he is far more competent that junior bush...
  reply report
  66
  Flightkeeperposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  He sure fits the libtard definition of competent, he spent more in one year without any results that Bush did in all 8 years with two wars.
  reply report
  62
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  cant only blame him for that..what is competent congress doing??...secondly bush blew off 1 trillion dollar in wars...now obama can't be asked to create that in an year what bush did spent in 8 years in his quest of blowing his old friend laden...
  reply report
  66
  Flightkeeperposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Congress is doing what he is directing them to do. So yes, you can blame him for that. And check your math, The Big Zero outspent more in his first year than Bush in 8. I prefer Bush's quest than Obama's brown-nosing Ahmadinehwateva and his cohorts.
  reply report
  62
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Obama's brown-nosing Ahmadinehwateva i liked how you placed it ...
  reply report
  75
  thisisoliposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Do you have a source for these figures? these values seem a little unlikely.
  reply report
  66
  Flightkeeperposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Do a google of obama spending vs bush spending.
  reply report
  70
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It's easier to blow stuff up than to build stuff up, Flight.
  reply report
  50
  eaglepitcherposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Really? "Junior" Bush ran circles around the idiots who thought he was one of them. At least I got up every morning thnking the good Lord that we had a Commander in Chief who was making sure the jerks who killed 2800 plus of our citizens were paying a price. Now I get up every morning and wonder if the current C. I. C. really cares about the greatness of this country (what's a few thousand killed in another terrorist attack when there are thousands of others to take their places). As he goes about apologizing and bowing to the world, we are fast losing face among those who hate us and those who once feared us. He has made the world a much more dangerous place!
  reply report
  70
  lucieanneposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  George W Bush was an idiot. He de-stabilised the entire planet with his foolish attack on iraq, and our stupid prime minister (Tony Blair - his little puppet) played right into his hands. They both knew there were no WMD, yet they went on spewing out their propoganda to everyone who would listen. War will never solve anything, but the trouble with America is, its got this huge chip on its shoulder that the rest of the world should bow down and kiss its arse. Why? North America should belong to the native Indians - you know, the ones who were there first, whose land you stole and left them with tiny reservations to live on. I grew up on the 'Cowboy and Indian' bullshit, where we were led to believe that they were all lawless savages who went round scalping everyone who stepped into their target line. Well lets face it, even if they did, they had damn good reason to, when the trespassers were coming along and destroying their homeland and murdering and raping their women and children!
  Now you talk about your president -who YOU elected, and, let me say, is doing a damn sight better than his predecessor, as if he's an incompetent oaf. Give the guy a chance. He can't possibly do a worse job than Bush, and if he is apologising for stuff, good on him! At least he's showing some remorse for all the crap the rest of the world have had to endure for God know how many decades.Take a good look at yourself and ask yourself why the world hates you. For the record, your CIC (Bush) did Jack shit to bring the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice. He went gung-ho into Afghanistan, killing thousands of innocent people, and Bin Laden is still out there laughing his tits off at you. Maybe you shouldn't be so worried about losing face. A bit of humility never killed anyone. Bombs, however, do. Incidentally, just what is so 'Great' about America, and just why should anyone fear you? It's that kind of talk that lands you in deep water. Arrogance is not a pleasant attribute. Have a nice day!
  reply report
  63
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well put, Lucianne!
  reply report
2. 77
  BDazzlerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sadly, I think that is too kind. He's not incompetent. He's accomplishing exactly what he set out to do. He wants to "change America". From his agenda and his actions he intends to:
  1. Increase employment among government workers.
  2. Put the economy under central control.
  3. Make sure his friends and previous supporters have their ideas advanced regardless of other people's opinions.
  
  His goal is to transform America from a meritocracy into a socialist wealth redistribution center. He believes that that is "fair".
  
  And there are those who agree with him and call that "progress".
  
  Those of us who disagree are loudly ridiculed and criticized for standing in the way of "progress".
  
  We are in an ideological battle ... and as much as I don't like him, I don't think he's incompetent. He just believes radically different things than I do ... and he's good at making "change".... He's going to "stick it to rich white guys". And he's going to call that "fair". And the people who agree with him are all over this forum.
  
  I wish he was incompetent.
  reply report
  79
  ReuVeraposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Agree, agree, agree....
  I must confess of being almost guilty to support Obama at the very beginning and the first reason he appealed to me was that he was half black. I wanted America to prove her diversity. I suppose this feeling was alike to the feeling that we had in my old country (Soviet Union), when my great grand uncle, a son of a merchandiser who would have no chance whatsoever to become any figure in the politics in the Tzar's time, became a prominent political leader in the young Soviet country. He was very good and honest and knew how to do his job. Maybe, exactly that's why later, in Stalin dictatorship, he was accused and imprisoned and was sent to rotten into concentration camp (part of GULAG). But this is another story.
  So, I almost wanted to support Obama. Then I made my own thinking, my homework. And I saw his background, but most important, I saw who were standing behind him, who were subsidizing him, who were pulling the threads..... This was it. As old saying puts it, "tell me who is your friend, and I will tell who you are". End of the story. The rest will be history... Unfortunately...
  reply report
61
prettydarkhorseposted 13 years ago
Hi pisean, good day, because he is handsome?
reply report
1. 62
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  may be..but unfortunately many girls out here go over board to criticize him so guess that is not the case..
  reply report
  61
  prettydarkhorseposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe, I will ask Stewie (courtesy of Fox station) when he goes home. I will scold that boy for being confused everyday.
  reply report
69
Bill Manningposted 13 years ago
No matter who got elected, the current president inherited so much crap that he's going to look bad. No person can turn around 20 years of slow buildup to a crisis in just a few years.

We would all be in the same mess we are in now no matter who got voted in.

Ironically, when things get better in a few years, which will happen just about the time of re-election, no matter who gets voted in at that time will be able to take credit for things going well.
reply report
1. 79
  ReuVeraposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Things won't get better in a few years with today's President ways.....
  reply report
2. 72
  Jillian Barclayposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You are absolutely right. Often find myself wondering if he ever says- "What the heck did I get myself into?" From the minute President Obama was elected (yes, he was actually elected; not a "gangster government" as so many say), it has been one thing after another and none of these events have been minor. If he were, indeed, a dictator, he would be able to keep his campaign promises. But he is not, and under our form of government, Congress has to vote on legislation proposed or sit around playing games. The one thing President Obama did not count on was the minority deciding to do everything in its power to stymie his every effort to make any changes. That is the problem- it is called, "We are so mad that you were elected, that we will do everything in our power to destroy you." It is sad, I think.
  reply report
59
SomewayOuttaHereposted 13 years ago
...it's politics...doesn't matter who leads anywhere...wouldn't want to be the leader of a country that's for sure...notice how grey he got and so quickly.
reply report
1. 62
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ya...he would be all grey when he leaves , i guess.
  reply report
2. 66
  Flightkeeperposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Can you believe how old this job has made him!? He's just like Carter in that respect. The position is way over his head and the stress and responsibilities and his inability to meet it has really aged him.
  reply report
  59
  SomewayOuttaHereposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ...i think if you looked at many leaders (before and after pics) you'd see quite a change....way too much stress....no thanks!....i noticed clinton aged really fast too....
  reply report
  66
  Flightkeeperposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  But not nearly as fast as Obama. Look at Obama at the beginning of his presidency and look at him now. Clinton aged over 8 years which is okay. The job is too big for The Big Zero to handle but hey, all he really did before that was to be a community organizer and junior senator. He's never really had any executive experience.
  reply report
  72
  Jillian Barclayposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Why so much hate? What is it that President Obama could have done to make you happier? Understand first, that your taxes have not gone up. Second, when Obama came into office, the country was losing 700,000 jobs per month and his economic policies have turned that around. We are still in bad shape, but the President can't wave a wand and make jobs appear on his own. Third, almost every economist has stated that if there had been no bank bailout (done under Bush) and no stimulus (done under Obama), that we would be in the middle of a depression now. I am probably older than you are and remember many recessions. I remember when mortgage rates were 15%. This recession is bad, but as with all the others, we are digging our way out of it. It does not happen overnight; others have taken as long as 5 years to recover from. So, finally, tell me what exactly would make you happier with our President? What are the things he is not doing that you want to see him do? I really am interested in your ideas, not looking for ways to fight.
  reply report
  62
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  except bush all aged fast..bush refused to grow up ..but i loved bush for his quotes..he had ability to make people smile and that is not small ability...
  reply report
57
ftclickposted 13 years ago
The same could be said of critiquing Clinton 10 years ago. It's just politics and the Republicans are good at campaigning. They know "W" started the mess, but then they'll say it was from Clinton and so on. "round and round"
reply report
1. 66
  Flightkeeperposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Oh please, Bush didn't go around saying that Sept 11 happened because Clinton wasn't on the ball. The Big None always says it's Bush's fault.
  reply report
  70
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  But 9/11 happened nine months into W's first term.
  
  The recession (and the bailouts, remember!) started on W's watch.
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  it's nonsense to think that the president has control of an economy. This thinking simply shows that we've deified our president.
  
  Please to be reading article 2 of the Constitution again. He only has like 4 powers, and 3 of them are appointing people to positions.
  reply report
  66
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  What is most shocking is that, even after the cataclysmic events of late 2008, people STILL don't seem to talk (much) about the fact that it is predominantly LARGE CORPORATIONS running just about ALL of America...
  reply report
80
Me, Steve Waltersposted 13 years ago
Why not criticize...? Every President with in our time has been highly criticized. Why should he be exempt?
reply report
1. 63
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Nobody's suggested he should be exempt. However, claims that he hates America and white people and that he has a Kenyan anti-colonialist mentality are ridiculous not to mention non-specific about his policies. Mudslinging and name calling are not criticism.
  reply report
  70
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Mudslinging and name calling are not criticism."
  QFT.
  reply report
0
jerrylposted 13 years ago
flightkeeper,

It appears that you are a rightwinger. I believe that both parties are in cahoots with each other.

I would like to hear who you think, from the GOP, would have kept the system from going into a deep
depression, were they in Obama's shoes?

What would they have done that differed from Obama?

Please explain how it would have been accomplished in 2 years.

I would like to hear the details.
reply report
61
mikelongposted 13 years ago
Flightkeeper continues to show quite a taint of hate towards the president.....

Yet she fails to point out how Obama inherited a record deficit from a previous White House that 1)cut taxes to rates lower than Reagan, his own father, and Clintion while 2) waging two unfunded wars, 3) pumping out an unfunded educational mandate, and 3) enabling companies like Halliburton and KBR (Cheney's best buddies) to ride roughshod through the world with a blank spending check...

Flightkeeper either forgets or doesn't know that it was under Dick Cheney's watch at Halliburton that Halliburton was found to have illegally done business with Iran, and through Halliburton that Iran received centrifuge technologies that now pins us against the potential threat of nuclear weapons in that nation....

Flightkeeper points out Obama's incompetence....which I don't agree with, and ignores or sidesteps treasonous and illegal activities by the guys he just replaced....

While I have been a lifelong Republican I can no longer support this organization....they have proven themselves to be corrupted, bigoted, and neglectful of anything that does not turn themselves a profit....

As for the Democrats, I don't know what the party would have looked like if its core leaders had not been assassinated physically and personally throughout the 1950's and into the 1970's.... People like to belittle Carter....but I find that most of his hecklers have little understanding of what was going on at the time, and how "politics" are created and formed by hidden hands with self-fulfilling prophecy agendas.....

As for Flightkeeper's disparaging remarks about Obama's appearance.....I'd like to see her in a similar situation and see how she does..... I watched the President's economic townhall yesterday, and the President's ability to cognitively and clearly answer questions surpassed any "Bushie" similar experience.....and probably better than any of Flightkeeper's...

With that said, each president ages dramatically while in office....as did Bush the second.....

Hypocrisy is all around us.......and if one checks the voting record of House and Senate Republicans over the past 10 years it is easy to spot..... It is so hard to hide the blatantly obvious, that the GOP has to work extra extra hard to divert attention somewhere else.....and unfortunately there are enough disgrunted Americans (who are unaware of our true "national" dealings) to switch into angry mode over Islam, undocumented immigration, and "socialism" to keep the denial train going....

NAFTA is coming up for re-approval this coming year........who is serious about discussing what we need to do as a nation to get out of this mess, and which side is ready and willing to do what it takes?

I believe Obama will stand against NAFTA, as do I.....it has crippled men and women, as well as small businesses and farms on both the American and Mexican sides of the border....

Flightkeeper, do you have actual policy issues to discuss, or is it just the typical ongoing rant?
reply report
1. 0
  jerrylposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Mike, Well put. We never found out where that 8 billion in hundred dollar bills went in Iraq, under the Bush admin.
  
  We never found WMD. Thousands of U.S. service personel died trying to prove a myth.
  
  I wonder when people will be able to think outside the box and press congress to address the fractional reserve debt monetary system?
  
  Which party is going to demand an audit of the fed? This would show who really runs this country!!
  reply report
2. 61
  Rasman1posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah a fellow conservative with sense.
  reply report
61
mikelongposted 13 years ago
Insert 1960's for 1950's....

I really like to look at the image of Cheney. I urge people to look into his past, from Nixon aide on through his Halliburton CEO-ship til today...

I wish readers to find out more about the Iranian National Oil Company... Who runs it? How is money brought in and divided?
reply report
61
jayman6018posted 13 years ago
He's earned it.
reply report
1. 0
  Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Indeed!
  The man has worked hard at dividing this Nation!
  Criticism of that is one of the few things he HAS earned!
  Probably the only thing.
  reply report
  63
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The Tea Tards and the rich people who are manipulating them in their own interest (the Koch brothers, Dick Armey, Dickie Scaife Mellon and the Wall Street banksters) are the ones dividing the nation, not Barack Obama. His instinct is to be a uniter, not a divider.
  reply report
  61
  Rasman1posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  How has Obama divided the country. Please give an example.
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  i dunno, 1 trill to failing businesses for a start. That pissed ME off....
  
  Porno scanners in the airports... that's annoying.
  
  continuing the war in Afghanistan and bombing Pakistan DESPITE winning a nobel PEACE prize... that's annoying.
  
  Creating a hefty subsidy to health insurance companies via a UHC package. That was quite annoying.
  reply report
  66
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  More agreement
  reply report
  61
  Rasman1posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Evan I don't disagree with you about the Bailouts that Bush Started. Bailing out The Finance industry was not good. Remember that 85 Billion to AIG. The scanners came up during the Bush Admin. We never bombed Pakistan and we are trying to pull out of the failed Bush Afghan war.
  
  The questions is though if GM failed how many jobs would that have cost America. I mean it was not just cars, it was all, the materials as well. It would not have been just GM that Failed. On that Note GM has paid back that Government Loan. In fact most of the Money Loaned to the banks has been paid back.
  
  What do you think Obama should have done to stop the economic disaster? If I remember the Month he took office the country lost almost 1 Million jobs and the DOW was down to 6,000. Looks like our Economy is beginning to do a little better than the last 3 years. What's your idea's besides lower taxes.
  reply report
  63
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Most of the $85 billion to AIG actually passed through, 100 cents on the dollar, to Goldmine Sucks to fulfill insurance contracts on bundles of toxic mortgages assembled and sold to suckers by Goldmine. Nobody has been able to explain why the big boy geniuses at Goldmine weren't able to figure out that AIG might not be able to pay off its obligations and why they should have gotten 100% protection from the American taxpayers. CEO Blankfein calls it "doing the Lord's work." This highway robbery was perpetrated by Bush's Treasury Secretary Paulson who was a former CEO of Goldmine. If I recall Blankfein and Geitner were also in the room when the decision was made. (I could be wrong about that.)
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  a healthy economy is NOT measured in jobs.
  
  It is measured in production. People who lose jobs because their jobs are not economical are, unfortunately, more productive in other jobs.
  
  When Henry Ford mass produced cars (it originally took him 36 hours or so to make a car, and i think he got it down to under an hour)... were we all complaining that horse-crap-clean-up jobs were being lost en masse?
  
  No. of course not. we were all celebrating the fact that we could now drive in cars.
  
  When the internet came out, were we sad that Amazon.com was forcing book selling stores to fire people because of the competition? Now, we were all ecstatic that we could buy books from our CPU.
  
  Jobs are not what makes a good economy, production of valuable goods and services are.
  
  ** and really quickly. Were you arguing that the United States have never bombed pakistan? cuz we have/are. Bush was not president during this time, but Obama is.
  reply report
61
mikelongposted 13 years ago
Lady....under this "common" conception of "big government" lies something much different, and much more sinister...

I again have to use the model of Dick Cheney, for I believe he has had a huge roll to play in this current conception thoughout his career in and out of the beltway.

"Big government" represents the agencies that enforce things like anti-terrorism sanctions..... Cheney believes that Halliburton, or any "U.S. person" should be able to do business with anyone they wish with no government intervention...

"Big government" refers to the commissions that would be established to investigate whether or not Cheney's leadership at that corportation directly related to the formation of the Cayman Islands based shell-subsidiary Halliburton Products and Services Limited.

"Big government" also is tied to the ability of Congress to demand the Executive Branch turn over tapes during the Watergate Affair.....for it is through these trying times for Nixon that Cheney served with Rumsfeld on his staff.... Crooks of a feather flocking together.... Cheney would argue while in the House of Representatives that the Executive Branch was entitled to greater exclusivity from the reach of the Legislature.....

"Big government" will also mean the starving off of social programs, this is true.... But the travesty beyond travesties is in the abuses that will continue if not exacerbate under this false image of Jefferson...

To me specifically, "small government" means Enron and PG&E paradise... The "small government" will still give hundreds of billions to the department of defense, and we will continue to wage war globally in the pursuit of corporate profit...while using the corporate media to spin the public perception around and back again...

Then again, with the lack of public educational institutions that will follow such downsizing, the military would be the next logical scenario.... That and prison. From "small government" to governmental parentage vis a vis service, gi bill, va services..or their penal institutional others...
reply report
61
mikelongposted 13 years ago
Brenda....

Obama did not divide the nation...

To try to put forward the idea that this nation has ever been united about anything is preposterous....reckless....and irresponsible.

Instead of pointing at Obama, more people need to point at themselves...

From "Obama is a Muslim" to "Obama is not a citizen" and onward....hostility has been stirred up knowingly amongst the larger pool of blinded and uncaring..

Why have they forgotten the Cheney "blank check" while lying to the American people philosophy?
reply report
1. 0
  Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Why can you not see him for what he really is?
  He's a man intent on "making a name" for himself, pushing his own personal vengeance agenda, something he should be personally resolving within his own life instead of perpetuating it upon the American people.
  McCain was right when he said we don't have time for "on-the-job training" where the Presidency is concerned. That's a high-impact position that should be vetted much more in-depth than it has been before. Or else.....a portion of the power of that Office should be subjected to more stringent checks-and-balances.
  reply report
  63
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Totally vacuous crapola!
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Think so?
  
  Let me ask you this---Is a President supposed to make policy, or be instrumental in enforcing the existing policies of America?
  Is he supposed to be a tyrant, or a leader?
  Is he supposed to twist the Constitution for his own ulterior motives, or be a patriot?
  reply report
  0
  jerrylposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Brenda, Which of the presidents are you referring to?
  
  Haven't we suffered under most all of the different administrations at one time or another?
  
  Why not get off the blaming game and into the game of trying to help solve problems?
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That would be great!
  But how to do that when America falls so easily at the feet of one man, just because he's labeled a symbol of "diversity" and "change"? AND when there is no reasonable process to kick his rear out when he's ripping apart the fabric of America and appointing like-minded people in positions to help him do just that?
  reply report
  63
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  What do you have against diversity and change?
  reply report
  70
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "few people can hate so bitterly and so self-righteously as the members of a ruling caste which is [afraid of] being dispossessed."
  reply report
  0
  jerrylposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Brenda,
  
  Again, blaming one man! Who is your choice for president, and how would he/she have done anything any differently? Details please.
  
  it is the partisan bickering and blaming that is causing the problems. That, and both parties cowtowing to corporate lobbyists.
  
  If both parties truly represented the people, there would be fewer problems. This is why I do not support either party. However, I do not look for sinister objectives in most everything the president does. What is accomplished in doing that?
  
  I hear the blaming coming from both sides, whether it be from the house or senate.
  
  Surely you can see this! One has to be blind to not see it.
  
  What I read or hear from the media, I take with a grain of salt and try to read between the lines. Usually the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
  reply report
  61
  Rasman1posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Brenda President don't make Policy. Congress does. Obama can make suggestions on what he wants but essentially it boils down to congress making laws and policy. Do you know Civics and how it works in this country?
  reply report
2. 60
  Jonathan Jancoposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Nobody's forgotten, it's just not the same people criticizing the president as previously. The more I see of the Tea Party the more I suspect it's just people who miss Bush. After all, they have his entire platform down pat . . . TAXES!!! SPENDING!!! GUNS!!! WAR!!!
  reply report
61
mikelongposted 13 years ago
Brenda, please inform me on what McCain would have done differently?

How would the economy be any different today?

The Bush bailout proposals would still have been passed....TARP would still have unfolded.... The "bail outs" would have still happened... The Republicans were only against it after they supported the same ideas under Bush's "watch".....if I can actually call it that...

You can always point to the "Obamacare" scare....but I believe all the bark to be worse than the bite... While I see flaws in the legislation, it is the "small government" style of regulation of health insurance itself that is the larger problem. The insurance companies should not be allowed to run up prices.....

I have government care myself via the Veterans Administration...I only wish more people could have the peace of mind that I do.....virtually free health care for life.....I love it.

Would we still be in Iraq?

Cheney and Bush would still be exempted from investigations into potential criminal actions....

I guarantee that, had McCain been in office, the "Mosque at Ground Zero" controversy probably would not have been publicized as much...or if it had I believe the outcome would have been different...

I agree that the divisive "Obama is a Muslim", "Obama is not a citizen" and all the other garbage would not have permeated itself via chain emails around the nation.....I have received so many...

In terms of the "vetting" comment you made Brenda.....after the GOP's "selection" process in the last election, and the current trend within both the GOP and Teaparty, I have to confidence in either's ability to "vet" anyone...

It is also my opinion that a great many people who use this word "vetting" probably never had heard of it, let alone used it in a conversation, prior to this past election season...

Another example of how a significant concept becomes lost within the currents of "mainstream" media babble...
reply report
0
Brenda Durhamposted 13 years ago
I don't know what McCain would've done differently!
But I would hope that he would've stopped the bailouts after the first one.
At any rate, I believe he would've actually had a patriotic basis in his thinking, whereas Obama does not.

Neither do I have any confidence in either Party's ability to vet anyone. Nor the "independent" Parties!
Change we need, yes! But not Obama's change. We need change in the political process starting at the base of it.
reply report
1. 63
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  FYI, the bailouts occurred under Bush.
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  bailouts DID occur under bush, but not all of them!!
  
  I distinctly remember 1 trill going to bailout businesses with Obama's stamp of approval.
  reply report
  61
  Rasman1posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Not true and Prove it. Your memory is not good. Which companies got 1 trillion dollars form the Government. Most have paid back the money LOANED to them
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne … 185868.ece
  
  I think that just about sums it up. I'm not familiar with "the sun", but no matter their political leanings, the bailouts were signed into law by obama.
  reply report
2. 0
  sandra rinckposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  All you want is for Christian Law to rule the country and the world. You are not any different from the other extreme religious terrorist around the world.
  
  You don't care about anyone but yourself. You are unwilling to accept other who are not Christian who think that Christianity as well as many other religions are a pile of bloody text that cause problems whenever there is a disagreement because you are too unwilling to accept that life wasn't created just for Christians to preach the gospel.
  
  It's crap. There is no real love in the religious department, just people who want to but into peoples lives and want to use the government to enforce laws forbidding abortions to woman who have been raped, to burn any books that don't agree with the Creation story or your lord.
  
  You want to rule the world with an "iron fist" instead of love and kindness. There has never been one kind or loving word out of your mouth since you joined hubpages unless you pull a verse from your bible that you wouldn't actually ever apply to the real world unless it came with a pitch fork and fire.
  
  And you care more about money then you do about people.
  reply report
3. 70
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  A new Constitutional Convention perhaps?
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  let's reinstitute the most important check on the federal government there is: State's Rights.
  
  No, state's rights wasn't ONLY about slavery - it was actually used AGAINST slavery. Remember all those "fugitive slave laws"? Many northern states acted against them!
  reply report
  66
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  And you trust state politicians (and their concomitant public service) because....
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Think about it this way.
  
  Which system is going to keep freedom longer?
  
  1- The system where 50 people designate specific powers to a group of individuals to make a very limited list of decisions; while at the same time these 50 individuals retain the rights to decide if those appointed individuals are abusing their power and have full authority to ignore the decisions if they are abusing their power...
  
  or
  
  2- the system where the 50 people appoint individuals to make a limited list of decisions, but in no way, shape, or form have the ability to ignore the appointed people's unjust laws, and also give the appointed people the power to decide if they are usurping power.
  
  Obviously the first system, where the states have the ability to ignore unconstitutional laws (aka, State's Rights) is the system that will retain freedom longer.
  
  In fact, state's rights have been used numerous times in US history to restrict oppression. The northern states nullified numerous pro-slavery laws; many states (starting with ohio) nullified national banks that were clearly unconstitutional; many states nullified Jefferson's trade embargoes (in fact, the first states to seriously consider secession were the north eastern states); and many states actually DID secede from the union when it became clear that the pro-deportation-of-all-blacks-because-he-thought-they-were-inferior-to-whites-and-who-also-wanted-a-constitutional-amendment-to-prohibit-future-amendments-from-ever-repealing-slavery president Abraham Lincoln thoroughly trashed any semblance of the Constitution.
  
  Currently Montana (i believe) is nullifying a Federal law regarding Guns - if a gun is made and sold and used in Montana, it can in no way be legislated about via the Federal Branch of Congress.
  reply report
  61
  Rasman1posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  States Right was largely a slavery issue. I believe in the States having the right to do their own thing but the Constitution Restricts their powers and all states must follow Federal Law.
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  no "State's Rights" were NOT chiefly about slavery. You didn't read what I wrote, did you? The first states to consider secession were the the north eastern states for economic reasons.
  
  And your second statement is also wrong. Please re-read the constitution. The tenth amendment clearly states that any power not granted to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is a power granted to the STATES. Allow me to quote it in all of it's glory:
  
  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
  
  And, in fact, the Constitution was largely a document restricting the central government. there are only like 18 powers granted to Congress (article 1 section 8). EVERY OTHER NON-LISTED POWER that isn't denied to states IS A STATE POWER.
  reply report
4. 61
  Rasman1posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  McCain voted for Bailouts
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Anyone who still thinks that the republicans and democrats are different parties are fools.
  reply report
  66
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Agreed (eek, I agreed with you)
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think we're very different.
  reply report
61
mikelongposted 13 years ago
Thank you Brenda....

You have demonstrated how, like so many others, you are quick to criticize, but yet have nothing to actually put forward yourself....not even in defense of something that you supported, like a McCain presidency...

It is this kind of decision-making and argumentation that divides...for it becomes plain that there are simply those turning out senseless, mindless spew and others who are trying to wade through it...

I have arm-pit high gaiters....and I don't mind "slogging" through s..........
reply report
1. 0
  Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Don't tell me I don't have anything to actually "put forward"!
  Indeed I do, as in my post above. You are quick to judge, aren't you?!
  Obama needs to be removed from Office immediately. That would be a start toward putting an end to his (and all the liberals')progressive ripping-apart of this Nation's foundation.
  But I bet you say that's impossible, or incorrect.
  And you're meaning that we should "work with" the situation we have.
  Sorry, but it's impossible to fix something in a timely fashion unless you have the right tools to do it with.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You mean like a gun or something?
  reply report
61
mikelongposted 13 years ago
Reuvera....your criticisms of Obama's language usage I find questionable...

I suppose you'd like a "you betcha" in there somewhere?

Obama is one of the most eloquent political figures of our lifetimes... Whether I agree with him or not, he speaks very well, and he serves as a model for what other public speakers should follow...

Even when I supported Bush, listening to him give a press conference, let alone a townhall, was like pulling teeth... I just constantly felt sorry for the guy....

Too bad he was such a patsy...

Again....under the McCain/Palin agenda the bank bailouts would have still happened.... One doesn't have to be "into" politics....this is basic cognizance of policy issues...

In terms of the "apology tour"..this use of language shows where you receive your "news".....while not potentially from the training camps of Glenn Beckistan I sniff out Schmucks News anywhere....

The blind leading the blinded...... See how they run..... Only it is our tails that stand to get cut off...
reply report
1. 79
  ReuVeraposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  What is "betcha"? It's not in my vocabulary. English is not my native language, you know...
  
  Eloquence is evil often times.... wait.. who is eloquent? He, or his writers? He is a good performer, that's for sure. But I always consider that good deeds are better than good words.
  And I thought "apology tour" was my term... I don't watch TV at all, all the news I get online, first hand, just naked information without spices. How else you'd call it, when the President is going around the world apologizing for "bad behavior" of his country?
  But all this is not the point. A president candidate is running for this position willfully, he knows what he is getting into. He does not inherit the situation, he fights for it.
  But now what?.... Everything is somebody else's fault. If Obama does something bad, it is Bush's fault. If he does something not so bad (especially if it is just following the previous plan), then he takes credit to himself.
  Well, have a nice day. I am up to go do something useful.
  reply report
  63
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Bush lied us into a foolish war in Iraq while neglecting Afghanistan and cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans, creating a huge deficit. Worse, he appointed people to regulatory agencies who believed the "market" was the best regulator which put the country into the deepest recesscion since the Great Depression of the nineteen thirties. So, he turned a deep recession and two wars over to Obama. Then, the Republicans didn't support sufficient measures to deal with it. In fairness to Bush, the deregulation, government is the enemy craze started with Reagan and was continued by subsequent presidents including Clinton. There is plenty of blame to go around for Obama's predecessors, but he's being criticized unfairly in my opinion.
  
  "Betcha" is slang for "I'll bet you." As in "I'll betcha ten bucks on the Yankees next Saturday."
  
  Eloquence is a gift put to good use by politicians dating back to the Greeks and Romans, Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, Clinton and Obama. I guess Hitler was, in his own perverse way, eloquent also, which was, as you observed, evil.
  reply report
61
mikelongposted 13 years ago
This might be more to Brenda's liking...

reply report
1. 78
  lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Most definately Mike....
  reply report
2. 0
  Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Nope, not hardly.
  You do give the man more credit than he deserves. He is just a man, after all.
  But indeed it was an antiChrist spirit that got him into Office.
  reply report
  63
  Greek Oneposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  i thought it was a majority in the Electoral College?
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Everything in life is influenced by the spirit world.
  reply report
  69
  Bill Manningposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So it must have been gods will that he won.
  reply report
  63
  Greek Oneposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Pay attention, Bill!
  
  It was God's will that George W. won, but Satan's will that Obama won.
  reply report
  70
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yep, it pleases the Prince of Peace when a feller who jumps at any excuse to invade a foreign country runs the US, and it makes the Prince of Peace cry when a feller who wants to end wars and achieve peace takes over.
  
  I don't know how that works out...maybe Jesus is in the teamsters and doesn't like competition in the peace business?
  reply report
  62
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
77
Mighty Momposted 13 years ago
Greek One, whoah, that's heavy.
So if it was God's will that put W into office, that means that the Supreme Court = God's will.
If it was Satan's will that put O into office, that means that the Electoral College = Satan's will.

I guess I can see where logically this would lead. Smaller government tea party types like Sarah Palin would abolish (read: get rid of) the Electoral College, because it does Satan's bidding. All decisions about the US would be made within the "godly" Supreme Court.
On the plus side of that logic, there's no need for Congress, eh?
reply report
1. 63
  Greek Oneposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Heaven and Hell alternate the amount of influence they provide every 4 years...
  
  it's part of the checks and balances of the spiritual world.
  
  Every Senatorial candidate / witch knows that!
  
  reply report
2. 70
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  With no electoral college, Al Gore would have won in y2k...
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  the electoral college seems idiotic nowadays, but we must remember that it's simply an artifact of State's rights.
  
  The idea was that the Electoral college would vote for the candidates... nothing new there, but you have to remember, that was back in the day when the presidential candidates couldn't pick their VPs.
  
  Also, the state's governing bodies decided who the representatives and senators were - that way they could EASILY be recalled if they failed to vote the way the state wanted them to. Vote against your state? *whoosh* you got canned in a month.
  
  It's also kind of interesting to note that the new calls for "term limits" wouldn't be necessary if we continued to do things the way the Constitution originally intended - most of the senators and representatives would likely be canned.
  reply report
  82
  rachellrobinsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Oh my God it's been ten years when are you people going to stop whining about Gore not winning the election?
  reply report
87
rebekahELLEposted 13 years ago
and luckily we don't have McCain/Palin in charge. we would be much worse off than we are, possibly at war with Iran. there would be fewer employed, the deficit would be larger and there would be more people losing their homes as unemployment extensions would have never happened. there would be more homeless families, not just individuals.
think about that in November when you go to the polls.
reply report
61
mikelongposted 13 years ago
Reu, why do you write "bad behavior" in such a way?

Are you trying to say that the United States hasn't caused great harm worldwide?

Think again....

As for "apology tour"...I am still waiting to see justice take place in Honduras...where a military coup was orchestrated by a School of the Americas graduate who is also the general in charge of the Honduran Air Force....

A fellow alumnus of his is Manuel Noriega...

From Iraq to Panama, from Halliburton/KBR to United Fruit, Americans have a lot that weighs on their collective conscience....

I urge you to learn more about this country....
reply report
1. 70
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Heh, no kidding. You've heard the phrase "Banana Republic?" It's not just a chain of clothing stores. It was coined during Woodrow Wilson's presidency, as a term for the governments in Central and South America put in place and propped up by the US armed forces for the benefit of the (American) banana plantation owners.
  
  We'd like to think that the US only intervenes in the cause of freedom, but really, with one or two notable exceptions, the US has mostly intervened on behalf of powerful monied interests, and embarrassingly often, those interests really don't want freedom or self-determination for other countries.
  reply report
61
Rasman1posted 13 years ago
Is there anyone commenting that is going to make a good point. Some say policy well which policies are they talking about. The answer there is to many to list. OK list 3 that's it only 3. Someone said bank bailouts Bush started the bailouts so let's get that policy issue straight is there anything else. Come on America we are smarter than this. Does anyone have a creditable complaint about Obama's Policies. I do, but what about you.
reply report
79
ReuVeraposted 13 years ago
Well, agree, no criticizing Obama any more! No word of criticism in this thread!
Please, start counting GOOD what he did! Please, post! But it should be what HE did, not what he did following the previous plan of previous administration.
reply report
1. 66
  Flightkeeperposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Can you believe the outrage!?!
  
  Too bad the Obama worshipers can't take criticism. It seems as if they doth protest too much. And demanding all this proof and eloquent reasoning that they don't demand from themselves.
  
  This was enjoyable. Thanks for the laughs.
  reply report
  63
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  We are prepared to respond to cogent arguments supported by actual facts rather than b.s. from Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. Thusfar I haven't seen any.
  reply report
  66
  Flightkeeperposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well of course you wouldn't.
  reply report
  61
  Rasman1posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  right Deeds
  reply report
  63
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I don't consider myself an "Obama worshiper." I could list a number of things he could have done but hasn't, mostly holdover Bush policies involving spying on Americans and treatment of prisoners. One small item he hasn't done yet is joining the rest of the civilized world and ratifying the anti-cluster bomb treaty. At the very least he could order the Pentagon to stop using them and selling them to other countries and to destroy existing stockpiles of these brutal weapons that disproportionately kill innocent women and children.
  reply report
  66
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Besides, how is Obama worship different from Bush worship, or Reagan worship, or, yes, Clinton worship. It is hardly news that part of the population considers their president to be a demi-god (not saying you do, btw); and it is HARDLY unique to Democrats/Progressives! More like a shared ailment, if you ask me...
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  see, we can agree here!
  
  I'm sure we can both agree that people should re-read article 2 (notice, the president isn't even worth the first article) of the constitution to see the president's REAL 4 or 5 powers.
  reply report
2. 63
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  As I've pointed out, President Obama signed historic health care, consumer protection and banking reform bills, both imperfect but improvements, re-started the Salt nuclear disarmament talks, took steps which have effectively averted a major depression, re-started the Palestine peace talks after eight years of neglect by Bush, is following through as best he can to reverse the discriminatory, unconstitutional don't ask, don't tell military policy. And he hasn't started an more foolish, costly and needless wars. Also, he has begun to repair relations with our allies in an effort to establish cooperation in more effective, non-military means of dealing with terrorism. Finally, he has restored the separation of church and state that was sorely breached by Bush, and he has given a higher priority to environmental issues than Bush who allowed the oil, coal, mining and timber companies to have undue influence on the policies affecting them. Those are some points that come immediately to mind off the top of my head. He has accomplished them over almost universal opposition from the GOP.
  
  [I just read Lovemychris's points posted above. You are welcome to add them to mine for your consideration.]
  reply report
78
lovemychrisposted 13 years ago
Appointed Elizabeth Warren to start a consumer protection board! Yay!
Increased Pell Grants.
Signed the Lily Ledbetter bill. Equal pay for equal work dammit!
Reversed the ban on stem cell research.
Put off the Iran "war".
Is NOT totally butt-kissing to Bibiguns and the Likud criminal regime.
Increased medical and psychiological help for returning vets.
Increased monetary benefits for returning vets.
Cutting spending in the Pentagon.
Stimulus money to help people....not just banks.
No more denying medical coverage for pre-existing conditions....oh, like say PREGNANCY!!!
Reversed the ban on Americans receiving reproductive help overseas.
Said a woman has the right to decide her own life!!!

Money for lending to small business.

Put Shinseki in charge of Veterans Administration.
No more combat troops in Iraq. Afghanistan by 2011.

Told kids if you work hard and stay on the right path, you can achieve anything.

There is plenty more, but my mind is going on auto-pilot. Time to ZZZZZ.
reply report
1. 72
  crazyhorsesghostposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  As many of you know I am not for either party because I truly believe the country is broke and it needs fixed. And I don't think Republicans or Democrats are going to fix it. I think it is going to take a new American Party that is for America and American's first and to hell with anyone else. Before one more dime is spent outside the United States we need to have America's problems taken care of first.
  
  Obama thinks he can change the United States and the world but it just isn't going to work. All were going to have is more political infighting between the Democrats and the Republicans.
  
  The Democrats and Republicans keep you from thinking about the real issues like poverty , hunger and health care for every single American.
  
  The Food Stamp program does not work. Fraud and not enough food stamps per person keep the poorest of the poor hungry. Especially children and people that really can't help themselves.
  
  I really do wonder what people like Lincoln , Kennedy , Jefferson , and Washington would think about present day America. I would almost bet you that most of them would call for a new American revolution.
  
  We lock people up for marijuana when the product could be taxed and the proceeds used to provide real health care for each and every American and buy food to feed all the American children that go to bed hungry every night.
  
  America needs change. Real change. We need to kick out career politicians and institute term limits and ban lobbyist period. Then we good have a real new government that could work. Really work.
  
  America is broke and it really needs fixed. We need to worry about the problems here at home before we worry about the problems overseas. We can no longer be the police to the world. We have to many problems here at home. Problems that need to be addressed by people that really care about America. And America should come first before anything else.
  
  No I am not a Obama fan but I'm not for either party and their political infighting either. America needs real change.
  reply report
  60
  Vladimir Uhriposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  crazyhorsesghost. Hi.
  See poverty is curse. It cannot be solved. 2000 year ago was said that we will have poor always. The third party will not do it. Especially socialism will not do it, it already failed. The Church can help to feed the poor and bring new life to them and teach them how to work.
  Problem is we are brainwashed that we have to solve poverty problem by stealing from others and give it to who do not work. It never will work. Distribution of wealth started by communists and collapsed. Only some get rich, central committee of communist party.
  reply report
62
pisean282311posted 13 years ago
thanks to everyone for responses...
reply report
0
GladYaMetMe!posted 13 years ago
The suckers around here are breeding like bedbugs in big cities . . .

reply report
1. 62
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
61
mikelongposted 13 years ago
"Yes, just a list. Some of those points are oh so much untrue.... One glaring mistake is the notion that Mr. Obama "directed military leaders to end the war in Iraq." Sorry, absolutely factually incorrect."<---Reu

Reu....from his inaugural address onward Obama stated quite clearly that he would end the war in Iraq.... If he didn't direct this action, who did?

As for Afghanistan, Obama did the same thing....he stood up to his advisors who wanted to "keep on slogging" and told them that the "end" was coming....

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/22 … 1%7C172122

As for accomplishments: http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy

Jim....are you saying that funding huge tax cuts while waging two wars (among other things) was sound economic policy?

As for "myths", are you trying to say that Bush/Cheney do not hold a huge weight of responsibility for our current mess?

Please, cite your sources when you respond.....I wouldn't want you to put forward more "myths" of your own...
reply report
1. 62
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If obama didnt direct military to end war in iraq..america is heading for trouble..bcoz president should call shots and it is exactly what obama did...
  reply report
2. 60
  Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Jim....are you saying that funding huge tax cuts while waging two wars (among other things) was sound economic policy?"
  
  Didn't say anything at all about that.
  Source: Me
  
  "As for "myths", are you trying to say that Bush/Cheney do not hold a huge weight of responsibility for our current mess?
  
  Didn't say anything at all about that.
  Source: Me
  
  Hope that helps.
  reply report
3. 79
  ReuVeraposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ok, I thought we can't put links here, but if you did, I'll do too.
  Read every word and check every proof. This is from somebody who really knows much more that we do (and she gave me her approval to use the links):
  
  http://hubpages.com/hub/Why-Does-Obama- … Did-Not-Do
  
  http://hubpages.com/hub/Still-Blame-Bus … t-Mr-Obama
  reply report
0
kimberlyslyricsposted 13 years ago
reply report
1. 61
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ah, your version of left wing scare tactics? By the way, you can't vote "Tea Party" because they aren't a "party".
  reply report
  60
  DevLinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sarah? That you?
  reply report
  0
  kimberlyslyricsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The funny part is I am not American and have no clue left to right, except my hands, but, damn, just love a tea party :
  reply report
2. 77
  BDazzlerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I don't want him to nuke ALL of Canada ... only Quebec ... Gee Whiz, you liberals are SUCH exagerators
  reply report
  0
  kimberlyslyricsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ha
  reply report
3. 61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I was a member of the tea party (see my hub "origins of the tea party"). Alas, a truly grass-roots effort to hold the federal government's proverbial feet to the blinding flames of the Constitution.
  
  Remember the constitution? It was glorious.
  
  Let's see - regarding the funny posters Kimber put up (from the top left, going right): 1) the president has no authority over education. 2) fire departments are state issues. 3) just funny nonsense. 4) social security IS unconstitutional, but the joke of "government take over" is humorous 5) the minutemen protected their families from the government with guns. The 2nd amendment clearly is in place to hold the Federal government's feet to the fire. 6) the federal government can't do anything regarding religion 7) news to me 8) Congress needs to declare war, not the president 9) sattire.
  reply report
  77
  BDazzlerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Re: 8) I'm fairly certain Quebec represents a clear and present danger ... nuke now, declare war later
  reply report
4. 70
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
61
mikelongposted 13 years ago
Reu....to begin with, I did not cite hubpages articles....

Secondly, Bush had a long, long, long time to "exit" Iraq....where he illegally put our troops to begin with...

Obama, on the other hand, publicly denounced Iraq military action, just as Lincoln called out against President Polk against the illegal invasion of Mexico...

"Bush's intentions".........those are scary words...

Obama ran on ending the war, and he has done a better job of keeping that promise than his predecessor...

As for the hubs you posted....I read through the rant of the first one, and perhaps I'll read through the second one later...

"Liberal Liberal Liberal"...more like "Marcia Marcia Marcia"...

If one wishes to look at the economic crisis, one needs to look no further than the Inland Empire here in California....this region of Ontario, Fontana and San Bernardino was the epicenter (and still is) for the housing crisis...with more foreclosures here than anywhere else in the nation.... Unemployment is huge....driving down the main thoroughfares, businessess are shuttered all over the place...

These businesses and the residents of this region have failed because of broken trade policies....they are the result of the loss of manufacturing jobs.....

Working as a temp in a Walmart distribution center does not replace these good paying jobs...

The expansion of globalisation, meaning the power of money and jobs to move across borders without limits and without regard to who is being left behind is the key to our woes...

But I don't see any of these issues mentioned in the article that you cited....

Anyone can be angry and spew about something, but when I don't see true facts being mentioned the "report" turns into a "rant", and then it loses credibility and readability.

As for this person "knowing more than we do".....I am not so sure...

Jim....since you could not disagree with either of the questions I posed to you, this must mean that you agree that Cheney and Bush played a considerable role in destroying our nation...economically, politically, and socially....

It was their blatant manipulation of our government for their private interests....(Cheney's Halliburton stock went from 2 million to over 12 million dollars while he was v.p.)...that have broken our national image, money line, and has divided our people....

While screaming "terrorist terrorist terrorist" Halliburton, following the same illegal precedents established under CEO Cheney, has done business with "terrorist" Iran...even supplying the "rougue government" with the centrifuge technology that is now being used to scare Americans about "nuclear Iran." Talk about being the change one wants to see.....

Why not delve into the truly illegal and ridiculous....why not look into the actions of our former vice president prior to and since his becoming vice president...

Then realize, if a criminal like this can gain office, hold onto it for 8 years, and then go on to a quiet life without fear of being called in for his actions, then what hope is there in dealing with wrong behaviors Obama engages in?

Or will the "black" man get "caught" while the "white guy" who did far far worse gets away?

If we can't punish bush and cheney for their aggregious abuses....who can be punished?
reply report
1. 60
  Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Jim....since you could not disagree with either of the questions I posed to you, this must mean that you agree that Cheney and Bush played a considerable role in destroying our nation...economically, politically, and socially...."
  
  There is a third option and that is I didn't say anything at all about that.
  
  Nothing
  
  Zilch
  
  Why are you trying to get me to agree or disagree with you?
  reply report
61
mikelongposted 13 years ago
Jim, I'm just trying to get you to clearly state you opinion in full.

While I agree with you that the economy was in decline prior to Bush taking office, I most definitely believe that two wars on top of tax cuts and no-bid "blank check" contracts to the likes of Halliburton/KBR et al have dragged us down far deeper than we would have ever gone otherwise...

The departure of our national treasure increased exponentially after 9/11.......and "terrorist" nations like Iran benefitted from the increased access that companies had throughout the Gulf region following our illegal invasion...

You and I have had disagreements before Jim, and I wish to continue to test your barometer...
reply report
1. 60
  Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "While I agree with you that the economy was in decline prior to Bush taking office, I most definitely believe that two wars on top of tax cuts and no-bid "blank check" contracts to the likes of Halliburton/KBR et al have dragged us down far deeper than we would have ever gone otherwise..."
  
  I'll agree with that.
  
  Obama has even pushed us further into decline and at a faster pace.
  reply report
59
chubatemjenposted 13 years ago
It there was ever a man,a great Gentlement president of America,it is Obama...the increase in tax cut, increased expenditure on war outside United State doesn't necessarily undermines Obama's policy but that of his predecessors.His policy of larger global insight ,the withdrawal of troops from Iraq is very commendable..
reply report
1. 63
  Greek Oneposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  how can you say that... he is a black Muslim communist who feasts on embryos!
  reply report
  77
  BDazzlerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Anyone who enjoys omelets feasts on embryos.
  
  And you say that like being black, communist and a Muslim are all bad things...
  
  I'll have you know I would be against him if he were a white Muslim communist.
  
  reply report
61
Doug Hughesposted 13 years ago
The criticism of President Obama is, to a great extent, an orchestrated, coordinated campaign by the rich over of one issue and one issue only - TAXES. President Obama proposes to actually address fundamental issues in this country and it will cost money. (Even if he wasn't addressing problems, fixing the deficit will cost money.)

The wealthy are petrified they will be required to pay their fair share of taxes and to aboid that they are funding and pandering to every special interest group who can be persuaded to oppose President Obama.
reply report
1. 78
  lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ahhhhh--I think you are right! that explains the hysteria and wack-job tv personalities and candidates!!!
  
  They are scared.
  
  Obama is threatening their God.....MONEY!!!
  reply report
  62
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  interesting...
  reply report
  0
  GladYaMetMe!posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Great observation, however, I see right-wing proclivities as money, fear and anger-- best exemplified by the Bush administration . . .
  
  And to expand somewhat, Ronnie Ray-Gun was the greatest sideshow barker for the rich because he could pick middle class pockets while coming off as their dearest pal. The GOP (read Greedy Old People) have been trying to find a Frankenstein-clone of him ever since he started pitching Chesterfield cigarettes, General Electric and Boraxo . . .
  
  Thankfully, all they can come up with now is Boehner, but I'm sure they'll assemble a better monster before 2012.
  reply report
2. 63
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Somebody said recently "You can teach a parrot to say 'cut taxes, cut taxes,' but when you're done it's still a parrot. Seems like there are a lot of parrots around these days.
  reply report
77
Mighty Momposted 13 years ago
Ha ha Kimmy -- where did you find those?
Only one I can take issue with is that Obama is LEFT HANDED.
I looked up which other presidents have been left handed.
He's in good company (and bad company:-) with some of the most beloved and respected POTUSes:

James Garfield, 1881
Herbert Hoover, 1929 – 1933
Harry Truman, 1945 – 1953
Gerald Ford, 1974 – 1977
Ronald Reagan, 1981 – 1989
George Bush, 1989 – 1993
Bill Clinton, 1993 – 2001
Barack Obama, 2009 – 2017?
reply report
77
Mighty Momposted 13 years ago
Evan,
Since the president's "real powers" are, in fact, limited by the Constitution, he can hardly be blamed for every single thing that has occurred during his administration. He is not solely and personally responsible for either the victories or the failures.
I get that fundamentally many people feel our country is going in "the wrong direction." The majority of Americans voted Obama in in 2008 in direct response to 8 years of egregious Bush policies (which also were not solely or personally Mr. Bush's).
Whatever Mr. Obama has been able to accomplish has been in spite of obstructionists in the GOP. What he has not been able to accomplish has been for the same reason -- he does not have the power or authority to implement policy all by himself.
Did he set an ambitious agenda for change? Yes, he did. America needed and still needs massive changes to how we approach and deal with our problems, which are complex. And we live in a complex world economy, whether we want to admit it or not.
If I read one more time about "The Constitution" I'm going to scream. Obama TAUGHT constitutional law.
I daresay he has a better grasp of what is and is not "constitutional" than most people who hold the document out like it is their own sacred bible.

Just for one day, how about if the Party of NO provides a POSITIVE plan (not a campaign slogan, an actual PLAN) for even one social or economic issue America currently faces.
reply report
1. 0
  Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The RNC Pledge recently unveiled can be found online.
  It's common sense stuff that Obama either didn't think of or else ignored in his quest to be the tyrant he's becoming.
  And it's great that SOMEBODY is the "Party of NO". Apparently no one else has the guts to tell Obama and Pelosi and the other bullies NO.
  reply report
2. 61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Since the president's "real powers" are, in fact, limited by the Constitution, he can hardly be blamed for every single thing that has occurred during his administration. He is not solely and personally responsible for either the victories or the failures. "
  
  I could agree with this statement, except the fact that he signed all the laws that were grossly unconstitutional into power. The real president would veto unconstitutional legislation.
  
  "Whatever Mr. Obama has been able to accomplish has been in spite of obstructionists in the GOP."
  
  Unfortunately the Constitution doesn't seem to obstruct him at all.
  reply report
3. 82
  rachellrobinsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Since the president's "real powers" are, in fact, limited by the Constitution, he can hardly be blamed for every single thing that has occurred during his administration..." yet somehow we are still in the blame Bush phase. I guess that doesn't apply to him.
  
  Evan... love the part about "Unfortunately the Constitution doesn't seem to obstruct him at all"
  reply report
78
lovemychrisposted 13 years ago
"That's the difference between a Democrat and a Republican. We give because we care, you complain because you have to."

This is the perfect way to descibe it! I hope you don't mind if I use it.
reply report
1. 82
  rachellrobinsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I think a more appropriate slogan would be " Democrats give so they can say look at me look at me, where Republicans give with out drawing attention to themselves."
  reply report
77
Mighty Momposted 13 years ago
Here's what I found when I Googled Obama spending vs. Bush spending. Interesting department-by-department chart. Only shows Bush budget for 2009 --not his previous years.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog … department
reply report
77
Mighty Momposted 13 years ago
Brenda, the RNC "pledge" is to keep GOP candidates from defecting from their own party!

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/201 … ledge.html
reply report
1. 60
  Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I would rather have some of those candidates go ahead and defect.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No kiddin'!
  The RNC doesn't need fence-straddlers who base their affiliations on what's most popular at the given time.
  reply report
77
Mighty Momposted 13 years ago
Only time (November) will tell whether the GOP is actually a tea party or whether the tea will get cold.
The Dems may be messed up, but this phenomenon takes the (tea) cake!
reply report
1. 0
  Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I think it's more like whether the "Tea Party" actually upholds the traditional Republican values or not.
  
  The "Tea Parties" weren't originally meant to be an actual political Party. And it would be a mistake for them to make it one.
  reply report
  86
  livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  They were also not meant to be socially-conservative (i.e. "cafeteria Christian"), either.
  
  Part of their raison d'etre was their disgust at the obsession with social conservatism of the GOP at the expense of fiscal conservatism, which, as we all know, was completely abandoned under Bush and a GOP-dominated Congress.
  
  Of course, social conservatives are wont to forget that...
  reply report
77
Mighty Momposted 13 years ago
I seem to recall a slight problem in this regard with Mr. Obama's precesssor.
reply report
77
Mighty Momposted 13 years ago
GYMM,
LOVE IT!!!
Is that the infamous "Pledge to America" we've been hearing so much about? Somehow I thought it was longer . Tee hee

Seriously, you cannot teach pigs to sing.
But, as noted by a previous poster, you can teach a parrot to say "cut taxes, cut taxes" but in the end, he's still just a parrot.
reply report
1. 0
  GladYaMetMe!posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks, MM . . . and at the risk of making some folks angry, some pigs can indeed parrot . . . Fascists!
  
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, speaking out against theft is truly evil
  reply report
77
Mighty Momposted 13 years ago
Oh boy, now you've done it. You are sooo gonna make some folks mighty angry (although I think they are sleeping or out sucking blood at the moment).

I feel compelled to educate you on an important point, tho, GYMM (being that you're new to HP and all).
Around here, the term "fascist" is synonymous with "socialist" is synonymous with "communist."
No, seriously.
reply report
1. 0
  GladYaMetMe!posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for the heads up, MM.
  
  If your only tool is a club, every problem looks like it needs to be beaten to death.
  
  Neanderthal politics at its best!
  
  And I'd send you a thank you message but I don't know how!
  
  Blue state indeed--Connecticut.
  reply report
  63
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  One of the Tea Tard nutjobs said it "may be necessary to use the Second Amendment" to take the government back for the people.
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkavwuWE5eQ
  reply report
  0
  GladYaMetMe!posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for the telling link, Ralph. That gun-nut defies credulity and description. Calling his automatic weapon "Baby" is so typical and he is the kind of paranoid sicko who keeps the gun industry, the NRA and all the mayhem in this country thriving.
  
  Obama, being half-black and a non-Southerner has a target on his back and he's the convenient outlet for anger and hate. Moreover Fox is the perfect propaganda machine to exploit the fear and rage out there. The perfect storm of ignorance and self-delusion!
  
  reply report
  77
  BDazzlerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Nazi Theory of Internet :
  The theory that, no matter on what forum, if something mildly controversial comes up, Nazis will eventually be brought up as a counterpoint, and discussed.
  
  Source: Urban Dictionary
  reply report
  0
  GladYaMetMe!posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well bDazzler, your observation isn't very original . . . or dazzling.
  
  Why don't you try addressing the points of the post and what the satiric cartoon points to--rather than a dull and tiresome response.
  
  Dazzle us with your superior erudition!
  reply report
  77
  BDazzlerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Which points? I didn't realize you had any worth addressing.
  
  I think my observation, while not particularly original or BDazzling and perhaps even dull and tiresome, was far more amusing to me than your cartoon.
  
  And if you think I'm here for any other reason than my own amusement... well, hey, now you know.
  reply report
  0
  GladYaMetMe!posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Which points??? Your reading is as shallow as your responses.
  
  Did you watch the video?
  
  You think a psycho with an automatic weapon who threatens politician is "mildly controversial?"
  
  Fox News incites sedition and you think that's "mildly controversial?"
  
  Beyond shallow, you seem lazy and your Christian proselytizing hubs seem to paint you as a hypocrite as well.
  
  You have a strange way of amusing yourself Mr. Dazzle!
  reply report
  77
  BDazzlerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So glad you approve.
  reply report
  0
  GladYaMetMe!posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Any time!
  reply report
61
WuldUStilRemebrMeposted 13 years ago
La dee da da.

To answer the question, because.

The subject is polytricks.
reply report
69
tritrainposted 13 years ago
Because he is a cactus.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/poll-1 … tus,18127/
reply report
77
Mighty Momposted 13 years ago
lucieanne,
Where have you been when we needed you?
Your observations about America and Americans is spot-on.
I, for one, have never wanted to be part of a nation that is "feared." That is not what "my" America is about.But what do I know? I'm a pacifict socialist pinko liberal .

And you're right. There is not a whole lot for us to be arrogant about.
Well said. I do hope to see you back here in the forums again soon!MM
reply report
1. 0
  SirDentposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I hate pinkos!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  
  just kidding.
  reply report
63
Ralph Deedsposted 13 years ago
Leonard Pitts says "It's long time past to move the fringes off center stage."

If there is an overriding hope for the Oct. 30 Rally to Restore Sanity that "Daily Show" host Jon Stewart is holding in Washington, surely that's it: a simple prayer that maybe the rest of us will finally be able to get a word in edgewise. The comedian's rally -- a "call to reasonableness" it says on the "Daily Show" Web site -- promises a welcome antidote to the tide of craziness now engulfing this country.

The situation has been vexing for years, but the last two summers, with their birthers and Ground Zero mosques and death panels and town hall shouting matches and guns at rallies and rocks through windows and threats of Quran bonfires and charges of socialism, Nazism, terrorism and a general sense of end-times bacchanal, have been especially disheartening.

Watching cable TV news -- often a bad idea -- one cannot escape a sense that everybody in America is yelling at everybody else.

But what about the rest of us?

People frame all this as a debate between political extremes, a mud fight between conservatives and liberals. I submit that it is more than that. I submit that because they are louder, more colorful, crazier, angrier and thus more entertaining, the fringe elements of American political thought -- right, and, increasingly, left -- have made themselves irresistible to the 24-hour cable and Internet megaplex, which, like a shark, is always swimming in search of its next meal. In response, that megaplex has ceded those denizens of the fringe the center stage and given them a megaphone....

Read more: It's long past time to move the fringes off center stage | freep.com | Detroit Free Press http://www.freep.com/article/20100928/O … z10pVi7uwZ

http://www.freep.com/article/20100928/O … nter-stage
reply report
1. 61
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The problem with all this is who decides where the center is? I contend the center is way to the right of the current group of democrats and America has always been a center right country. The noise is all coming from the left as they clamor for government to endow them with goods and services and to pay for it all with the wealth of the most productive and hardest working people in the country.
  reply report
  63
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps. But several of the people who've been nominated with Tea Party support are clearly fringe characters unequipped for public office. And there are Democrats in Congress who are pretty far left of center as well.
  reply report
61
anime_nanetposted 13 years ago
I guess people don't like a black president!
reply report
1. 60
  soldout1posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  They Only selected a Black President to take the fall. For Nothing more. America has been a disgrace to the rest of the world for a long time. Come on' other countries where throwing shoes at the white President. What a disgrace.
  reply report
  59
  LSKingposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  My husband says the same thing. It was a flawed office before he was in it. It's a shame that so much hatred is directed at one man.
  reply report
80
2besureposted 13 years ago
I think President Obama represents what a lot of people fear.
reply report
1. 0
  Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, tyranny and legislation that calls evil good and good evil. For sure that's scary.
  reply report
2. 0
  sandra rinckposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  What fear is that, a black man?
  reply report
77
Mighty Momposted 13 years ago
Another 100% flawless example is George W. Bush ever becoming president!
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

why so much criticism of barack obama?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

why so much criticism of barack obama?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies