Whats wrong with Obama, really?

I dont know much about the current president (Im Scottish so bear with me!) but, unlike many presidents who preceded him, he seems to care about what is best for the greater good. He seems sincere, intelligent, charismatic, confident...everything his predecessor lacked. He seems to be trying to avoid and withdraw from war as much as possible.

Healthcare - is his idea not similar to our national healthcare system which seems to work?

He's black/brown/coloured or whatever the pc word is at the moment. Ok, that positive is wearing a bit thin but it always is a reminder about how far things have progressed...he'd have been lynched 60 years ago...

Civil rights...emm Gay marriage...who cares really, I suppose, its not much of a vote winner, but does show his progressive attitude. Im actually for it. If any 2 people are in a long term relationship they provide emotional and financial support for each other, saving the state paying for it. I couldnt care less if they were male or female.

Financial chaos? Can he really shoulder that blame?

al sharpton has visited him at the white house 85 times, what more do you need to know?

He's all about change,

A few more years he would have changed the name of our country from USA to RNI....

Rainbow Nation of Imigration.

He lied about who he was. It's now obvious that he had a clear, calculated, deliberate, Far Left agenda. That he only showed his true colors after he was re-elected simply reinforces that fact. Plus, the guy's a wimp. Plain and simple. There isn't a world leader who fears him. Not a single one.

If you have the patience to go through 20,000 posts, you'll find that back in 2008 I was his biggest supporter. That's why I feel like I have the right to be so critical of him now. I was duped. Everything the Righties said about this guy turned out to be true.

And that eats at me. Because if you know anything about me, it's that I loathe the Far Right as much as I loathe the Far Left. Righties who blow up abortion clinics in the name of life are every bit as dangerous as Lefties who blow up construction sites in the name of saving mother earth. They're all fucking crazy.

Five, that is crazy..im sure Ive heard that before....I asked the questions just because I never have really heard a definitive answer about him. Bush was obviously mad and that is the consensus (ok, possibly to a lesser extent!) but I hear more and more negative shit about obama and want clarification.

Dues, I get your point as well, we've had the positive "melting pot of societies" where everybody just lives in harmony. In reality, large ethnic groups tend to stick together which just creates ghettos. My father moved to liverpool and a few years ago we drove through an area which had "Somaliland" spray painted across it (this was after he drove me round the beatles sights, strawberry fields, lennon/mccartneys old houses etc) and what a place...not a white face for miles...a car pulled in front of us and one behind right beside a gang on the street, they checked us over and we were allowed to drive off....fucking crazy. 2 min later we were back in the city centre, VERY tight borders there

PB, thats why I asked the questions, like I said, when he was elected I was convinced it was that jfk moment for my generation, you would always remember where you were etc. Its so disappointing to hear from people how much he seems to have fucked up and simply lied to them.

You think he always had an agenda or did the political machine just swallow him up?

I'm sure he had an agenda. One hundred percent. That's why I feel so duped. I backed the guy back in '08 in a big way.

An issue I have with Barack Obama is how he does not care about civil liberties. A huge liberal criticism of Bush was his passing the Patriot Act, which Obama extended. Part of the NDAA, allows US citizens to be held indefinitely without trial, which is a complete violation of the US constitution.

Obama and his foreign policy is under reported. When Bush left office his surge was 28000 troops, under Obama 34000 troops were deployed. He has killed over 2400 people with drones in six countries, including three American citizens (my brother and I argue over whether they are citizens or not and the legality aspect of it). So to say he is opposed to war isn't really true.

With health care I believe that you own your body and should never be forced to do something. If you do not have health insurance you get a tax penalty. Forcing someone to do something goes against the constitution.

I will not get into the race nonsense the liberal media spews on a regular basis. That would be a giant rant on the country in general.

2008: "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."
2012: "I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."

He is for civil rights when it fits his agenda, knowing that social issues will draw more of the "young" vote which is the reason he won both elections.

The financial problems can definitely be blamed on the Bush administration but also the Clinton administration is not blame free and it doesn't seem that Obama has helped that much.

He is a good speaker and tells you what you want to hear but his policy are not consistent with that. IDK if he is better than McCain or Romney would have been.

I like George Carlin's view:

“I don't vote. Two reasons. First of all it's meaningless; this country was bought and sold a long time ago. The sh*t they shovel around every 4 years *pfff* doesn't mean a f**king thing. Secondly, I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around – they say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain', but where's the logic in that? If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people into office who screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem; you voted them in; you have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote, who in fact did not even leave the house on election day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done and have every right to complain about the mess you created that I had nothing to do with.”

The USA needs to change the way it elects people, or at least the way it puts candidates forward... Its been fucked up for at least 16 years now. A daddys boy thick as fuck ex-drunk, fake flyboy texan followed up by a token black guy who's softer than my cock on a gay night out doesn't bode well for an international power

Dude, thanks for response, clears up a lot of things.....I like your last paragraph and will read up on Carlin

Obama's problem is less a matter of politics, more a matter of personal temperament. He just doesn't have the temperament to be an effective President. He doesn't have any empathy for people, nor any understanding or acceptance that being President requires the incumbent to relate to his fellow Americans on a level of personal understanding. It shows in his style: He's a fine orator, but a poor communicator. Oration is one-way downward, which suits him. Communication is two-way and involves listening, which doesn't even register on Obama. Communication is what made Reagan a hero to the same people he screwed.

Obama treats major issues as problems to be managed by his "experts," behind closed doors--not as opportunities to engage people and listen to their views. He knows he's smarter than everyone else--and it's your bad if you aren't as smart as he is. Small but telling example: he knew well in advance that Standard & Poors was going to downgrade America's credit rating. But, "smart" guy that he is, he knew it wouldn't have any real financial effect on Americans. So he said nothing. Never occurred to him that the average American would see it as another example of our nation's decline. Four days later, after a huge amount of angst and a big stock market decline, he finally spoke up. It's the same with other issues and opportunities he's ignored. He just doesn't relate to people. That includes Congress. His apologists berate Congressional "obstructionists," and yes, there are many. But, Bill Clinton had years of GOP control of both houses of Congress, and he got most of what he wanted. He liked people, and he liked politics. Obama likes neither.

Columnist Peggy Noonan put it well: "Obama regards the Presidency as an inconvenience on his way to greatness."

^^^^Peggy Noonan is brilliant.

TB, you hit the nail on the head. For several semesters now I've told my students the same thing. There are so many variables with which a president has to deal, but solid communication should be steadfast.

If I was not retired I would be looking forward to another unfunded mandate day off because he was elected President.

He is all about unfunded mandates. He does not care if we go broke as a country.

Most people don't care either until it happens. Then they will wonder why.

People actually believed he would bring people together when he first was elected. When he really never was like that. In fact he is just the opposite.

People actually believe that the economy is better because of him a fucking joke.

Deficient keeps going up like a freight train, and people actually believe it isn't.

I am amazed how many stupid people live in this country. People who can be lead people who want to be lead like sheep.

Politicians want a nation of sheep so they can lead them.

Yep definitely he is a divider and what he said at the prayer meeting yesterday has got to be the biggest gaf yet! More apology tour and he said Christians made mistakes (he was referring to the 1100's). His wife, Michelle wrote the "patient dropping" program with a few others in Chicago. First "first lady" to demand getting paid for doing her job????

when Obama is through, I for one cannot think of one major accomplishment that this man has had, and I absolutely abhor his wife, an attention seeking ego maniac.

who by the way has spent more money traveling around the world with her staff. than all other first ladies combined. she seems to think that the U.S. treasury is her personel piggy bank. I think we have been totally ripped off by the both of them.

He certainly seems to have fallen from grace in a big way. He is a politician though obviously and was never to be trusted from the start I would suggest?

How in the hell did he win the second election? He already changed his stance on various topics during his first mandate and his accomplishments weren't all that impressive. Or is it that after somebody like Bush, he was held at a lower standard?

There's plenty of presidents who have only had one mandate and have accomplished a lot more.

He got reelected because the U.S. is full of forgiving voters who don't spend a lot of time on politics.

It's the same everywhere, man. Here in 2005 we reelected someone who only 8 years earlier had caused a massive civil unrest/war because he pretty much legitimized and allowed Ponzi schemes to flourish. Half the population lost their fortunes, many of them lost their houses.

I think the reason is that people forget real easy.

The friggin mob don't even hold a grudge anymore. In America, anyway .

I've always been an independent voter. Depending on the issues and the candidates, I've voted for either major party (sometimes third parties). I wasn't a Bush supporter, but I'm even less of an Obama supporter. Most of the American media are shills for the Democratic Party and put out false info on Republican politicians while letting Democratic ones get away with murder. Just the examples you provided about Bush prove that. The major media claimed that Bush never flew planes. That message obviously saw its way to the UK, but further investigation showed that he actually did fly as a pilot for the Air National Guard. It was a way of discrediting him. The attack got most of the publicity, but when the media was proven wrong it got little, so you probably did not hear that. Then the story about his drinking. He admitted to drinking and partying when he was younger, but became an abstainer when he became a Christian. He wasn't a heavy pot smoker or a cocaine user like Obama though...something that seems to get little attention. The media was quick with the false accusations with Bush while ignoring major problems with Obama (or Clinton, for that matter).

George W. Bush led a decent personal life when he was President, and as far as I know, so does Barack Obama. The problem is with the issues. The biggest issue is the war against Iraq. Was the war justified? Saddam Hussein did many things that would be considered acts of war. He rewarded suicide bombers in Palestine. He repeatedly violated the "no fly zone." He had a hit squad to kill a former U.S. president. He violated sixteen United Nations resolutions. So yes, it was justified. Does that mean we should have gone to war? That's a harder question to answer. Why? Documents found after the invasion indicated that Hussein was planning on restarting his nuclear program, and his targets were Israel and the USA. On the other hand, the war was costly for American lives and served as a foil against Iran. It's believed that he might not have allowed Al Qaeda in Iraq to grow, but it's really hard to say if that's true. Hussein was a Sunni who repressed Shi'a and Kurds, so it's also possible that they would have become allies and he would have funded them to commit acts of terrorism. All things considered, while the war in Iraq may have been justified I don't think it was the best thing for the long term.

Obama, on the other hand, should have left a force in Iraq instead of making a hardline on withdrawing all of them. That allowed ISIS to gain a major foothold there. While the antiwar extremists praised him for doing that, Middle East experts warned him against it, and he ignored them. It reflects an arrogance that Obama has as if he knows better than everyone else, then is surprised when things don't go as he planned. The Benghazi incident, generally ignored by the press but would have blasted Bush if this happened under his watch, was an act of aggression, an act of war, that was met by...nothing. Obama should have taken charge to protect the American ambassador and his staff, but he did nothing and the ambassador was killed.

Likewise the media constantly complained about Bush destroying civil liberties, but civil liberties under Obama is far worse. With Obamacare people are forced to purchase insurance or suffer major fines, and he put the Internal Revenue Service to enforce it. That is almost a Stalinist sort of statism because the IRS can prevent you from getting access to your money, empty out your bank accounts, or send you to prison.

People complained that Bush spent too much and created a bad economy. That's true and false. The Bush economy started going bad after the 2006 midterm elections that put the Democrats in control of both houses of Congress. Bush tried to do something about the housing crisis during its earliest stages, but was stopped by politicians like Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. Franklin Raines was the head of the FHA under Clinton then Bush, and Bush called for an accounting of what he was doing. The Democrats circled the wagons and defended him. Raines enforced many of the policies that caused the housing crisis and gave himself and his staff millions of dollars in bonuses out of taxpayer's pockets. So the charge that Bush helped cause the housing crisis and the recession is really unfounded. Bush did increase the national debt substantially, and that charge is true. However, what gets almost no press coverage is the fact that the national debt under Obama is MORE THAN EVERY PREVIOUS PRESIDENT COMBINED! That should have been front page news because if the USA defaults on its debt it will lead to a worldwide depression. Obama called Bush "unpatriotic" for increasing the national debt, but Obama has increased it far more than Bush did...and Obama's still has two years left of his presidency!

Obama is currently working with Iran for a nuclear treaty after Iran has promised that if it gets nukes it will use them against Israel, but attacks and undermines Israeli president Netenyahu every chance he gets. Bush was always a good friend to Israel.

Under Obama race relations have worsened as he consistently does the wrong thing. He starts off by considering every criticism of him as racist instead of being against his far left-wing policies. He and his attorney general, Eric Holder, have done everything they could to divide people rather than unite, and helped fan the flames of anger and distrust in places like Ferguson, Missouri. As others pointed out, in allowing race-baiting con men like Al Sharpton unprecedented access to the White House shows just how wrong he is.

These are only some of the reasons why Obama is probably the worst American president since Woodrow Wilson (the president during World War I).

Faithful very well thought out great post.

The economy is wonderful, so long as you actually only read the U6 number:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-08...record-youth-li

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-03/gallup-ceo-americas-56-unempoyment-one-big-lie

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-14/gallup-ceo-blasts-us-leadership-economy-not-coming-back


"The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment

Here’s something that many Americans -- including some of the smartest and most educated among us -- don’t know: The official unemployment rate, as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, is extremely misleading.

Right now, we’re hearing much celebrating from the media, the White House and Wall Street about how unemployment is “down” to 5.6%. The cheerleading for this number is deafening. The media loves a comeback story, the White House wants to score political points and Wall Street would like you to stay in the market.

None of them will tell you this: If you, a family member or anyone is unemployed and has subsequently given up on finding a job -- if you are so hopelessly out of work that you’ve stopped looking over the past four weeks -- the Department of Labor doesn’t count you as unemployed. That’s right. While you are as unemployed as one can possibly be, and tragically may never find work again, you are not counted in the figure we see relentlessly in the news -- currently 5.6%. Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed. Trust me, the vast majority of them aren’t throwing parties to toast “falling” unemployment.

There’s another reason why the official rate is misleading. Say you’re an out-of-work engineer or healthcare worker or construction worker or retail manager: If you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 -- maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn -- you’re not officially counted as unemployed in the much-reported 5.6%. Few Americans know this.

Yet another figure of importance that doesn’t get much press: those working part time but wanting full-time work. If you have a degree in chemistry or math and are working 10 hours part time because it is all you can find -- in other words, you are severely underemployed -- the government doesn’t count you in the 5.6%. Few Americans know this.

There’s no other way to say this. The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie.

And it’s a lie that has consequences, because the great American dream is to have a good job, and in recent years, America has failed to deliver that dream more than it has at any time in recent memory. A good job is an individual’s primary identity, their very self-worth, their dignity -- it establishes the relationship they have with their friends, community and country. When we fail to deliver a good job that fits a citizen’s talents, training and experience, we are failing the great American dream.

Gallup defines a good job as 30+ hours per week for an organization that provides a regular paycheck. Right now, the U.S. is delivering at a staggeringly low rate of 44%, which is the number of full-time jobs as a percent of the adult population, 18 years and older. We need that to be 50% and a bare minimum of 10 million new, good jobs to replenish America’s middle class.

I hear all the time that “unemployment is greatly reduced, but the people aren’t feeling it.” When the media, talking heads, the White House and Wall Street start reporting the truth -- the percent of Americans in good jobs; jobs that are full time and real -- then we will quit wondering why Americans aren’t “feeling” something that doesn’t remotely reflect the reality in their lives. And we will also quit wondering what hollowed out the middle class."

I would guess the actual unemployment rate is close to 15 percent.

When my daughter decided to live in Germany in 2002. Their unemployment rate was right at 15 percent.

If a German company wanted to hire a non German. They had to send a letter to the German government why a German can not do that job.

No one in the press ever try's to explain how we get our employment numbers. Government just throws out their bullshit numbers and people believe it.

Get this at least 6 million people will get less of a tax return refund then they think they will for this past year.

Why because anyone who did not get healthcare the penalty will be deducted from them.

Obama is trying to take the the school what is it the 529 deduction for college education for your children or grand children away. Is that going to hurt the rich or the middle class?

People believe the press because they trust news reports and most people have no idea of the bias behind the news. When I read blogs and news stories with comments, left-wing posters often complain about Fox News and call it names like "Faux News," yet it is pretty much the only news channel that leans conservative, and that's pretty much only the opinion shows like Hannity and O'Reilly. It's actual news programs are pretty middle of the road. On the other hand, how many channels out there are on the left side of the political spectrum? ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, MTV, PBS...even the sports channels like ESPN will occasionally veer into politics and it's always to the left. Then there's American newspapers. How many are conservative? Two: the Washington Times and Investor's Business Daily. The New York Post sometimes goes right and the Wall Street Journal is right in it's opinion pages but not in its news division. On the left you have the New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, Atlanta Journal, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, New York Daily News, and pretty much every other newspaper in the country. Except for a few TV channels and newspapers the left basically has a monopoly on the news and influence public opinion to the Democrat Left. So when the White House in controlled by a Democrat, basically whatever it says gets passed on unquestioned by the press who in turn report it to the public. That's why so many people believe those false numbers even if they see huge number of unemployed people with their own eyes. Not just unemployed people, but underemployed people made even worse when Obama and the Democrats in Congress redefined full time work as 30 hours instead of 40, increasing the number of working poor.

I thought they called it Fox News because of all the hot women on that channel.

Often the slant of the opinion pages bleeds over to the news pages. For example, after the Obamacare rollout disaster, the Times ran news stories about the large number of people signing up, while the Wall Street Journal's coverage on those same days emphasized continuing problems with signing up and landing physicians. After the Sandy Hook shooting massacre, the Times, which is virulently anti-gun in its opinion pages, ran story after story about kids, felons and mentally disabled people getting guns.

I think it was more than obvious who Obama was before his first election. Perhaps many didn't want to see it, caught up as they were in they hope and hype about the possibility of America's first black president.

The guy is a cold, calculating politician. He went through the pretense of being Christian (he knew well enough he probably couldn't get elected otherwise) but anyone who thinks he takes religion seriously is an idiot. Just look at his stance on things like abortion and his "ever evolving" stance on gay marriage and who he has appointed to the Supreme Court.

You can also look at his non-response as of late to the terrorist attacks in France or the burning to death of the Jordanian pilot. Some may claim it's because he's a "secret Muslim" but, in reality, he's no more a Muslim than he is a Christian. Perhaps he may have some cultural leanings, because of his early years, but that's as far as it goes. His inaction and refusal to even acknowledge Islamic extremism are rooted much more in the sick liberal ideology of moral relativism and the knee-jerk reaction not to offend certain minority groups.

But it's the people who put him in office that are the real problem. Many of them the 18-35 "progressive" dimwits who get their news from Jon Stewart. Likely the same dimwits who will vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Obama's whole life was dominated by people who believed in Marxism. From his mother and biological father, his maternal grandparents, his early mentor Frank Marshall Davis, his later influence Derrick Bell, and his domestic terrorist friends Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. His voting record during his brief term as senator showed he had the most liberal voting record in Congress. All together, Obama is the most far left-wing president we've had. David Axelrod managed to put out this public image of a more moderate, mild-mannered, well-spoken politician who was "above" race. A lot of people believed the hype.

Like I was saying...


Obama concealed support for gay marriage in 2008, former senior adviser claims in new book
http://news.yahoo.com/axelrod-obama-misled-gay-marriage-2008-135612155.html

I haven't seen one post that puts some of the blame on congress, surely when you have a congress that sells themselves like whores on the street, they deserve to be called what they are.

they could have voted against the war in Iraq, they could have denied obamacare, they could have stopped the wall street bailouts, they could quit sending jobs overseas, as far as im concerned they are truly worthless.

so is Obama so was bush, we have to understand who really runs this country. the fourth branch of government, LOBBYISTS. if we could get rid of them, we might have a chance to create a great nation like we were after ww2. if they keep dictating policy we will only get worse.

Binnie, I can agree with you they all sale themselves. I'm too lazy and swamped at work to wiki anything but wasn't the house and senate both majority democrat when Osama took office? If so, the GOP had no chance of denying Osamacare or shutting it down. (Not arguing or picking a fight, I like you buddy)

Well America wanted change and free Ihpones and we got it. Here we are in shyte creek, anyone got a paddle? Nope, it gone.

Lobbying is in the Constitution. It's the right to petition the government. Lobbyists can influence politicians but they can't make them do anything.

Both parties voted for the war in Iraq, the Democrats push through Obamacare without a single Republican vote, the bailouts were primarily done with the approval of both parties (but not the more conservative and libertarian Republicans, such as Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Richard Shelby), and outsourcing is often due to American overregulation and high taxation that would prevent the companies from profiting at all, etc.

The AIG bailout, which was prompted by the Secretary of the Treasury and George Bush, was necessary because it was the largest single holder of mortgage securities worth trillions of dollars. If it went under the entire world economy would have collapsed. The good news is that AIG repaid the bailout with the U.S. getting $22.7 billion in profit.

I can't refute that Faithful. Like I tell everyone:

"Didn't matter if it was Bush or Gore in office. What were we supposed to do after 9/11? Vote to not go to war after 3,000 Americans died in an unprovoked attack?"

If we do that we lose credibility as a superpower, if we go to war we spend billions of dollars. Bin Laden put us in a lose-lose and he knew it from when he fought the Soviets.

LALOU, you're a great dude too, at least we can agree that congress is all corrupt no matter what party. it could be nice to vote against all incumbents maybe that would help.

Obama has had to deal with an obstreperous Congress. So did Clinton and Reagan, both of whom were in office when the opposition party controlled Congress. But they were able to work effectively with Congress because they liked people, they liked politics, they knew how to compromise and were focused on getting legislation through Congress--and they liked being president.

None of that applies to Obama. He probably can't wait for his term to be over. Neither can I.

Perhaps it was just never what he thought it might/should be and theres maybe 2 ways of looking at that, either the political machine is broken and way beyond his repair or the machine is working "too good" (for some depts) and he simply isn't being allowed to fix it. Im not convinced the president is always the one calling the shots, if ever.

Obama always strikes me as a driven guy who had a fairly rigid plan about what he wanted to achieve, but I suppose that sometimes comes with an inability for compromise...a basic skill in politics....although I completely disagree with it...compromise means deals, which generally means actions the public either don't hear about or get a watered down version of...neither of which they deserve from the people they have put in power

An inability to compromise can also be considered a sign of extremism. If the majority of voters didn't want compromise they wouldn't have voted for a divided government. Obama's party lost the senate as a referendum against his policies. Instead of realizing this Obama has doubled-down. That's not only extremism, but extreme stubbornness.

As for the president calling the shots, that's generally what he does. The U.S. president is also the commander-in-chief of the military and fills cabinet positions. A popular president or at least an articulate one can use his podium to manipulate public opinion. That's very easy to do in the USA where the media is generally pro-Democrat.

No, you cant say the president calls the shots, really? We all know they dont...you honestly think Bush did? You think his cabinet let him? Would you have let him call the shots in your kitchen? They listen to 'advice' and repeat, as Bush no doubt did more of than Obama, but they don't, cant, aren't permitted behind the scenes to call the shots, unless its about unimportant shite like gay marriage etc. to make them feel like they are achieving something. "Commander in Chief" is just a silly title which just oozes of fake bravado. Scotland's version would be "Jimmy Big Balls", just to make him feel good.

Never forget, the US press always manipulate public opinion, not the president, like every free country

Yes, Bush called the shots. His cabinet advised him but he made the final decisions. That's the president's job. Cabinet members don't have power over the president. He's their boss, not the other way around. That's how it's set up in our constitution. Maybe things are different in Scotland, but that's how it is in the USA.

You are correct that the US press manipulates public opinion, but you're mistaken if you don't think that a president can't do it too. That's why the president is said to have a bully pulpit.