Obama: Not even close to the worst president ever.

[Interbane]

Thank you for believing the way I believe the voters almost two weeks ago

The sad truth is, had every eligible voter gone to the polls, the Tea Party would have been trounced. The Tea Party commands many false principles, but it sure knows how to stir up the religious fanaticism in it's following to get them to the polls.

Thank the Lord God. Liberal Democrats want to help all the poor, just like how they caused the subprime mortgage bubble that is making millions of people suffer with unemployment and repossessed homes by banks.

So your argument is that not only did Democrats want to hurt the poor by causing the subprime mortgage bubble, but that they were the only cause of it, so are fully responsible. Then, since Obama is a Democrat, he is guilty by association and is the world president evar? We can forget the predatory lending that was going on, we can forget the deregulation from Carter and Reagan, then the SEC in 2004, which ultimately allowed the subprime bubble to pop. We can forget the fantastic financial instruments such as CDO's, MBS's, and CDS's which made the problem worse. It was all Obama and them damnable Democrats!!!

Much of your other post isn't related. Are you hoping to fashion an ad hominem attack against Obama via his pastor? I don't care about Obama. I'd defend anyone who was targeted by propaganda fueled lies, because the propaganda is created by power players who are the true risk to this country.

If Obama is the worst president that has ever been, it's not for any of the reasons you've listed. You've listed items that are horribly reasoned, not attributable to him, or are completely non-sequitur. That's the way of propaganda.

[President Camacho]

There's nothing substantial here - just slogans like spending. Not why the country needed to spend, was spending the right choice, who initiated the spending, what would be the outcome if there was no spending, what the alternatives were, what would a Republican president have done.

To toss away the costs of the Iraq war as though the consequences are just monetary - to say nothing of human life... wow. There are other consequences of the War, too. If you're a Mom of a dead soldier you're probably wondering why your son died.... freedom? really??? Maybe a delusion like that is all you have.





The spending is the biggest issue Republicans have with Obama besides the fact he's a black Dem. But if the Reps were in office there wouldn't be a completely different strategy - just a different excuse. And there would probably be more spending with Big businesses getting much more than anyone else under the pretext of jobs. Just look at the Tax cuts. We need money in our coffers but we can't tax the rich fairly. The first thing a Republican congress wants to do when they're in power? Extend tax cuts for the wealthy.

Obama has compromised too much. He's sought cooperation from Reps who only want to see him fail - and that means failure for the country, too. They aren't helping. Although the economy is THE problem which needs to be solved there are other issues which Obama has tried to rectify such as the Republican war on science.

[phillies4evr]

There's nothing substantial here - just slogans like spending. Not why the country needed to spend, was spending the right choice, who initiated the spending, what would be the outcome if there was no spending, what the alternatives were, what would a Republican president have done.

To toss away the costs of the Iraq war as though the consequences are just monetary - to say nothing of human life... wow. There are other consequences of the War, too. If you're a Mom of a dead soldier you're probably wondering why your son died.... freedom? really??? Maybe a delusion like that is all you have.





The spending is the biggest issue Republicans have with Obama besides the fact he's a black Dem. But if the Reps were in office there wouldn't be a completely different strategy - just a different excuse. And there would probably be more spending with Big businesses getting much more than anyone else under the pretext of jobs. Just look at the Tax cuts. We need money in our coffers but we can't tax the rich fairly. The first thing a Republican congress wants to do when they're in power? Extend tax cuts for the wealthy.

Obama has compromised too much. He's sought cooperation from Reps who only want to see him fail - and that means failure for the country, too. They aren't helping. Although the economy is THE problem which needs to be solved there are other issues which Obama has tried to rectify such as the Republican war on science.

all I have to say as to what you have said are not true as looking back at the Reagan era, unemployment was never this high, nor was the government in this country so broke! Now I hear that the federal post offices are not doing as well as they should be. So what do you think Obama will do next? Do you think he will bail out the post offices too? He bails out everyone not in the least bit concerned that there is no money, or it is hidden somewhere, to bail out the Postal Service. Obama's second middle name should be 'bailout' is great that he likes to bail out agencies that are not doing well, but he is not helping the Americans in general. We the people do not want to see money being thrown around but used to help find jobs for the unemployed; and remember unemployment is at an all-time high! Also, students attending college should be helped by financial aid and not turn down for any reason! Obama promised that he would help all schools including college. So what happened to that promise? Ask yourself that question.

[phillies4evr]

read this article as it is the truth!

From The London Daily Telegraph Editor On Foreign Relations

"Let me be clear: I'm not normally in favor of boycotts, and I love the American people. I holiday in their country regularly, and hate the tedious snobby sneers against the United States. But the American people chose to elect an idiot who seems hell bent on insulting their allies, and something must be done to stop Obama's reckless foreign policy, before he does the dirty on his allies on every issue."

One of the most poorly kept secrets in Washington is President Obama's animosity toward Great Britain, presumably because of what he regards as its sins while ruling Kenya (1895-1963).

One of Barack Hussein Obama's first acts as president was to return to Britain a bust of Winston Churchill that had graced the Oval Office since 9/11. He followed this up by denying Prime Minister Gordon Brown, on his first state visit, the usual joint press conference with flags.

The president was "too tired" to grant the leader of America's closest ally a proper welcome, his aides told British journalists.

Mr. Obama followed this up with cheesy gifts for Mr. Brown and the Queen. Columnist Ian Martin described his behavior as "rudeness personified." There was more rudeness in store for Mr. Brown at the opening session of the United Nations in September. "The prime minister was forced to dash through the kitchens of the UN in New York to secure five minutes of face time with President Obama after five requests for a sit down meeting were rejected by the White House," said London Telegraph columnist David Hughes. Mr. Obama's "churlishness is unforgivable," Mr. Hughes said.

The administration went beyond snubs and slights last week when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton endorsed the demand of Argentine President Cristina Kirchner, a Hugo Chavez ally, for mediation of Argentina 's specious claim to the Falkland Islands, a British dependency since 1833. The people who live in the Falklands, who speak English, want nothing to do with Argentina. When, in 1982, an earlier Argentine dictatorship tried to seize the Falklands by force, the British -- with strong support from President Ronald Reagan -- expelled them.

"It is truly shocking that Barack Obama has decided to disregard our shared history," wrote Telegraph columnist Toby Young. "Does Britain 's friendship really mean so little to him?" One could ask, does the friendship of anyone in the entire world mean anything to him?

"I recently asked several senior administration officials, separately, to name a foreign leader with whom Barack Obama has forged a strong personal relationship during his first year in office," wrote Jackson Diehl, deputy editorial page editor of the Washington Post, on Monday. "A lot of hemming and hawing ensued." One official named French President Nicolas Sarkozy, but his contempt for Mr. Obama is an open secret. Another named German Chancellor Angela Merkel. But, said Mr. Diehl, "Merkel too has been conspicuously cool toward Obama."

Mr. Obama certainly doesn't care about the Poles and Czechs, whom he has betrayed on missile defense. Honduras and Israel also can attest that he's been an unreliable ally and an unfaithful friend. Ironically, our relations with both Israel and the Palestinian Authority have never been worse.

Russia has offered nothing in exchange for Mr. Obama's abandonment of missile defense. Russia and China won't support serious sanctions on Iran. Syria 's support for terrorism has not diminished despite efforts to normalize diplomatic relations. The reclusive military dictatorship that runs Burma has responded to our efforts at "engagement" by deepening its ties to North Korea.

And the Chinese make little effort to disguise their contempt for him.

For the first time in a long time, the President of the United States is actually distrusted by its allies and not in the least feared by its adversaries. Nor is Mr. Obama now respected by the majority of Americans. Understandably focused on the dismal economy and Mr. Obama's relentless efforts to nationalize and socialize health care, Americans apparently have yet to notice his dismal performance and lack of respect in the world community.

They soon will.

--London Daily Telegraph Editor -- Alex Singleton





--
Ed Schriber
Col. USMC (Ret.)
"Semper

[Interbane]

Phillies, here are a few questions. Specifics, as Johnson asked for. It will help with the discussion.

1) Did Obama cause the high unemployment rate?
2) Would Republicans have avoided the bailouts Obama instituted?
3) Why is our country in debt?

[JulianTheApostate]

Thank the Lord God. Liberal Democrats want to help all the poor, just like how they caused the subprime mortgage bubble that is making millions of people suffer with unemployment and repossessed homes by banks. The money has to come from somewhere, and Obama along with the Democrat controlled Congress (both houses) are throwing us and our children into the abyss. I dare anyone to watch the first video I posted about.

That video involves such distorted reasoning about what caused the financial crisis. It made one point that's totally correct: the underlying cause of the economic crisis is insufficient regulation. However, if you believe that, you should support Democrats, since Republicans strongly advocate reducing government regulation. For example, virtually all Republicans opposed the financial reforms Congress passed to increase regulation of the financial sector to prevent another financial collapse. In fact, the one person I'd most blame for the financial crisis is Ronald Reagan, who started the massive deregulation trend, allowing risky financial practices that led to the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

Now, subsequent politicians are also responsible for insufficient regulation. For example, Bill Clinton and a large bipartisan majority in Congress supported the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. The Clinton administration was lax about regulating new financial instruments like derivatives. Unfortunately, both parties are dominated by corporate interests. Still, it's incoherent for anyone who wants more regulation and less corporate influence to vote for Republicans, who always do whatever big business requests.

all I have to say as to what you have said are not true as looking back at the Reagan era, unemployment was never this high, nor was the government in this country so broke!

Why go back to Reagan, when you can look at what happened when Clinton was President?

The unemployment rate dropped under Clinton, but rose under Bush. It was increasingly dramatically when Obama took office, and his policies are a major reason why it leveled off.

Similarly, the budget deficit peaked in 2009, based largely on the circumstances that existed when Obama took office. Though there was a surplus when Clinton left the White House, there was a deficit subsequently, mainly due to Republican policies: a massive tax cut, the war in Iraq, increased military spending, and higher interest payments on the increasing debt. The economic meltdown led to less tax revenue and more demands for social spending like unemployment compensation, increasing the deficit. Only a small fraction of the debt was caused by Obama's policies, since the other factors would still have been in play had McCain been elected.

[phillies4evr]

Thank the Lord God. Liberal Democrats want to help all the poor, just like how they caused the subprime mortgage bubble that is making millions of people suffer with unemployment and repossessed homes by banks. The money has to come from somewhere, and Obama along with the Democrat controlled Congress (both houses) are throwing us and our children into the abyss. I dare anyone to watch the first video I posted about.

That video involves such distorted reasoning about what caused the financial crisis. It made one point that's totally correct: the underlying cause of the economic crisis is insufficient regulation. However, if you believe that, you should support Democrats, since Republicans strongly advocate reducing government regulation. For example, virtually all Republicans opposed the financial reforms Congress passed to increase regulation of the financial sector to prevent another financial collapse. In fact, the one person I'd most blame for the financial crisis is Ronald Reagan, who started the massive deregulation trend, allowing risky financial practices that led to the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

Now, subsequent politicians are also responsible for insufficient regulation. For example, Bill Clinton and a large bipartisan majority in Congress supported the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. The Clinton administration was lax about regulating new financial instruments like derivatives. Unfortunately, both parties are dominated by corporate interests. Still, it's incoherent for anyone who wants more regulation and less corporate influence to vote for Republicans, who always do whatever big business requests.

all I have to say as to what you have said are not true as looking back at the Reagan era, unemployment was never this high, nor was the government in this country so broke!

Why go back to Reagan, when you can look at what happened when Clinton was President?

The unemployment rate dropped under Clinton, but rose under Bush. It was increasingly dramatically when Obama took office, and his policies are a major reason why it leveled off.

Similarly, the budget deficit peaked in 2009, based largely on the circumstances that existed when Obama took office. Though there was a surplus when Clinton left the White House, there was a deficit subsequently, mainly due to Republican policies: a massive tax cut, the war in Iraq, increased military spending, and higher interest payments on the increasing debt. The economic meltdown led to less tax revenue and more demands for social spending like unemployment compensation, increasing the deficit. Only a small fraction of the debt was caused by Obama's policies, since the other factors would still have been in play had McCain been elected.

don't even go there with me about the war that started after 9/11. All those thousands of American citizens lost their lives that day would agree that we had a retaliate somehow for what was done. The Moslems came into our country, became citizens here, and then they did what they did for no reason at all. It was rumored that this was done to get back at the first Bush...... it was our only option but to go overseas and retaliate for all the damage that had been done here and all the lives that were lost. Do you believe that we should have just sat back and did nothing at all? If your family members have been killed for no reason at all, we would you suggest? Would you suggest that we do nothing and let this happen over and over again? The second Bush had no choice but to send us to war to show these Moslems and others who were involved that we mean business; we were coming there to do our job the way they had done to us. In my lifetime, the best president was Reagan. That is my opinion and just let it stand. I can tell you are a stout Democrat and so you feel you can lambash all the Republicans. Wake up and smell the roses! Obama took a situation that was starting to become a critical one, and he hasn't even been president for two years and look at the state of our economy! So now, can you say for sure that this is all the Republicans fault?????? do you get the Rasmussen polls in your e-mail. If you do or even if you don't, only 28% of the citizens of this country who were polled are in favor of what Obama has done. That number is sickening and yet its true. This will be my last post on here as it is stressing me out too much because I have an illness in which I have to stay calm. So be it as it may, just read the Rasmussen reports and you will see the truth in that report is always accurate! They declared long before the election that the tea party would win and as a tea party activist, a strong victory was to be had on election Day. so, KUDDOS to the tea party!

[Jim Watters]

Thank the Lord God. Liberal Democrats want to help all the poor, just like how they caused the subprime mortgage bubble that is making millions of people suffer with unemployment and repossessed homes by banks.

So your argument is that not only did Democrats want to hurt the poor by causing the subprime mortgage bubble, but that they were the only cause of it, so are fully responsible. Then, since Obama is a Democrat, he is guilty by association and is the world president evar? We can forget the predatory lending that was going on, we can forget the deregulation from Carter and Reagan, then the SEC in 2004, which ultimately allowed the subprime bubble to pop. We can forget the fantastic financial instruments such as CDO's, MBS's, and CDS's which made the problem worse. It was all Obama and them damnable Democrats!!!

Much of your other post isn't related. Are you hoping to fashion an ad hominem attack against Obama via his pastor? I don't care about Obama. I'd defend anyone who was targeted by propaganda fueled lies, because the propaganda is created by power players who are the true risk to this country.

If Obama is the worst president that has ever been, it's not for any of the reasons you've listed. You've listed items that are horribly reasoned, not attributable to him, or are completely non-sequitur. That's the way of propaganda.

Watch my first video several posts back about burning down the house, if you are capable of it. The video unfortunately does not mention Obama's work with ACORN, but it shows that as a lawyer he sued banks for not issuing enough loans to poor people and how he has deep connections with the ones who caused this economic disaster the Democrats fought against preventing. It's all about redistribution from the "rich" white people to the poor black people. I wouldn't be against this, but I think better schools and classes explaining the effects of drug use and early pregnancy would be beneficial.

There is a radio interview with Obama before his Presidency where he says the U. S. Supreme Court did not go far enough in attempting to provide reparations to African- Americans when slavery ended. I can't find the video on YouTube because they probably took it down. So here's something else.

[froglipz]

November 5, 2010

NIA Projects Future U.S. Food Price Increases

The National Inflation Association today announced the release of its report about NIA's projections of future U.S. food price increases due to the massive monetary inflation being created by the Federal Reserve's $600 billion quantitative easing. This report was written by NIA's President Gerard Adams, who believes food inflation will take over in 2011 as America's greatest crisis. According to Mr. Adams, making mortgage payments will soon be the last thing on the minds of all Americans. We currently have a currency crisis that could soon turn into hyperinflation and a complete societal collapse.

"For every economic problem the U.S. government tries to solve, it always creates two or three much larger catastrophes in the process," said Adams. "Just like we predicted this past December, the U.S. dollar index bounced in early 2010 and has been in free-fall ever since. Bernanke's QE2 will likely accelerate this free-fall into a complete U.S. dollar rout," warned Adams.

NIA projects that at the average U.S. grocery store it will soon cost $11.43 for one ear of corn, $23.05 for a 24 oz loaf of wheat bread, $62.21 for a 32 oz package of Domino Granulated Sugar, $24.31 for a 32 fl oz container of soy milk, $77.71 for a 11.30 oz container of Folgers Classic Roast Coffee, $45.71 for a 64 fl oz container of Minute Maid Orange Juice, and $15.50 for a Hershey's Milk Chocolate 1.55 oz candy bar. NIA also projects that by the end of this decade, a plain white men's cotton t-shirt at Wal-Mart will cost $55.57.

Read the full article here:

http://inflation.us/foodpriceprojections.html

Who is the National Inflation Association? I tried to look them up, they don't seem to really exist... It looks like a couple of people got together and made themselves a fancy, official sounding name, so that people would listen to them. And when is soon? And what will wages be when bread costs $23.05, in 1979. minimum wage was $3.85 and gas was around $0.75 a gallon. Cigarettes had only recently topped $0.50 a pack and stamps were something like $0.15... In January of 1980 I think minimum wage went up to $4.10, I know because that was my first raise ever. The wages go up, the prices go up, it HAS to be that way, both because this is a capitalist society, where we charge what the market will bear, and because the cost of production just went up.

[Interbane]

Phillies:

All those thousands of American citizens lost their lives that day would agree that we had a retaliate somehow for what was done. The Moslems came into our country, became citizens here, and then they did what they did for no reason at all.

JimWatters:

It's all about redistribution from the "rich" white people to the poor black people.

Wow. :saddam: