Poll: Obama 'worst president' since World War II

Everything I highlighted is easily refuted and you pulled them out of your ass. The unemployment rate is artificially lowered because so many people have dropped out of the market and those jobs that have been filled are generally underpaying part time jobs. The actual rate of unemployment is probably closer to 18-20%.
Talk about pulling things out of your ass !
And, assuming it is right, how much it was in '08 ?
Yeah Bin Laden's dead but only because Obammy had his hand forced.
WRONG !
After reviewing the intelligence breakthroughs, the Obama administration had to grapple with the data's resulting uncertainty. When asked for confidence that bin Laden was in the Abbottabad compound, the estimates ranged from 10 percent to 95 percent certainty. Several red teams worked to "poke holes" in the analysis and finding. Bowden on the president's reaction:

So as the conversation around him about levels of certainty wore on, the president... interrupted.

"This is fifty-fifty," he said. That silenced everyone. "Look guys, this is a flip of the coin. I can't base this decision on the notion that we have any greater certainty than that."


In order to respond to the intelligence finding, the interagency process produced four options:

The first option, a large bombing, was rejected because of the expected collateral damage. According to Bowden, "America was not going to obliterate [the compound, its women and children, and the surrounding houses] on a fifty-fifty chance of also killing Osama bin Laden."
Another type of airstrike the White House considered was a surgical bombing with a "small guided munition that could be fired from a tiny drone [...]" It was, in Bowden's words, "a kind of magic bullet [...]"

[But] The weapon had yet to be used in combat, although the technologies involved - drones and missiles - were hardly new. The only difference with this one was its size. Sill... did you want to hinge such a critical opportunity on one shot, with a missile that had never been fired in anger?

The "ground option" -- a raid -- was more complicated, though better if Obama wanted to positively confirm bin Laden's identity. Its advocate, Admiral William McRaven of the Joint Special Operations Command, could "tell the president for sure [...] that if his team could be delivered to the compound, they could clear it and kill or capture bin Laden with minimal loss of life."

Obama told McRaven that if his SEALs went in, they were coming out. Bin Laden was an imperative that outweighed the relationship [with Pakistan]. If the Pakistanis sounded an alarm and responded faster than they anticipated, so be it. There would have to be a confrontation. He told the admiral to be fully prepared to fight his way out.

"Doing nothing" does not seem to have been ever seriously considered but it was an option presented during the final discussion on April 28, 2011.

According to Bowden, participants in that final meeting held in the White House Situation Room were "asked to choose one of the three options: the raid, the missile strike, or doing nothing -- and then defend their choice." While nearly everyone in the room preferred the ground option, the advice at that meeting forced deliberations, as designed, and reflected varying personal and bureaucratic knowledge and comfort with risk:

The only major dissenters were [Vice President Joe] Biden and [Secretary of Defense Robert] Gates and, by the next morning, Gates had changed his mind. [Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General James Cartwright and Leiter favored the drone over the raid.]

The vice president was never shy about political calculations. He believed that if the president decided to choose either the air or the ground option, and if the effort failed in any of the many ways it could, Obama would lose his chance for a second term.

While there has been some suggestion that President Obama "had made this gutsy call after being roundly advised not to," Bowden concludes that "when Obama decided to launch the raid he was not acting against the advice of his top-level advisers."
http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...ind-obamas-decision-to-kill-bin-laden/263449/

He made the decision. He could have done nothing and no one would have known. Or he could choose either of the options and risk his second-termn on it. He choosed the most risky solution, the one that had the less chance to work but the one who would have the less consequences if the datas had been wrong. And it worked.

More corporations are moving their headquarters overseas because of his punitive measures and they're making a profit in spite of him.
Again you've pulled this out of your ass...

He antagonizes our closest allies and race relations are near an all time low and he consistently takes sides without letting the justice system do its job first.
Except Herr Netanyahu, who did Obama antagonised ? In my view, most of US allies who have met both Bush and Obama (David. Cameron, Angela. Merkel, S. Abe, etc.) like Obama better than Bush.
 
Yeah and race relations have taken a drastic dump because of how many whites hate that there is a white president. Did you watch Vice last week? Since Obama took office the white far-right militias have increased tremendously as have gun sales. White people are pissed off, period.

The police have caused a HUGE portion of the race issues. Look at Ferguson for example with the profiling and specifically targeting brown people to raise money for the city. How about when an unarmed black person is shot or choked to death by a policeman and instantly everyone on Fox "News" is on the side of the police even before the facts come out. Why do you think THAT is?????? Not necessarily because the "reporter" is a racist but because they know that what the viewers want to hear. The racial divide is being driven by both sides of the media and by the thriving racism in this country.

And again, saying that the unemployment rate is that high and being masked because people gave up...who put them out of work?????? And if we have the longest period of pvt sector job growth n history how is that bad exactly? We are growing jobs today, which you can dispute but the facts say otherwise, and we were losing 780k a month in October 2008. Again, if you need help with that math that means we're doing better today than we were then.
 
The facts came out on Michael Brown. And all the narratives were a lie. If that guy had not tried to take the weapon of officer Wilson he would be alive today. Of course militias are growing and people are buying more guns because Obama is a gun grabber. Fortunately he has been thwarted.

Race relations are worse because of the policies of Holder and Obama. And the coddling of Sharpton. And even worse, One Big Ass Mistake America takes every opportunity to fan the flames of racial tension.
 
White people are pissed off, period.
SOME white people are pissed off. Not alla white people are racist.
Some white people are pissed off because Darren Wilson, Georges Zimmerman and many others got away with murder.

Of course militias are growing and people are buying more guns because Obama is a gun grabber.
If he was a gun grabber, he would have used executive order to implement some gun control in the country.
If he was a gun grabber, assault riffle ban and background checks on every gun sale would have been implemented after Sandy Hook.

The fact that, after 6 years in office, Obama did not implemented any gun legislation proves that he is not a gun grabber.
But the gun-lobby like to paint him as one, to tell people that they better buy guns now 'cause Obama's gonna make the illegam very soon. They've been doing that for six years now and people are still buying it :rolleyes:
 

Mayhem

Banned
Of course militias are growing and people are buying more guns because Obama is a gun grabber. Fortunately he has been thwarted.

Militias are growing and people are buying more guns because they're idiots who listen to hysterical, pussy crybabies and alarmists like Wayne LaPierre and Rush Limbaugh. Obama was never the slightest threat to gunowners. And anyone who says different is an hysterical, pussy crybaby.
 
SOME white people are pissed off. Not alla white people are racist.
Some white people are pissed off because Darren Wilson, Georges Zimmerman and many others got away with murder.

And some black people (Eric Holder) cleared Darren Wilson of any wrongdoing.


This notion that republicans oppose Obama because he's a black president is fucking stupid and childish, not to mention blatant race-baiting. Like the GOP wouldn't have opposed a President Hillary Clinton as stridently and made it a priority to make her a one-term president.
 
Militias are growing and people are buying more guns because they're idiots who listen to hysterical, pussy crybabies and alarmists like Wayne LaPierre and Rush Limbaugh. Obama was never the slightest threat to gunowners. And anyone who says different is an hysterical, pussy crybaby.
I say he is a threat and the only thing that stopped him was blue dog democrats and the rest of congress that hold the 2nd amendment in high regard
Anyone that says otherwise has their head in the sand and is a goddamned idiot. Obama is on record even years before becoming president as being anti 2nd amendment
How the hell you were ever deemed fit to wear our country's uniform will forever be one of lifes great mysteries.
 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
Militias are growing and people are buying more guns because they're idiots who listen to hysterical, pussy crybabies and alarmists like Wayne LaPierre and Rush Limbaugh. Obama was never the slightest threat to gunowners. And anyone who says different is an hysterical, pussy crybaby.

People are buying more guns, because the prices are going up. Why not pay $1000 today, as opposed to $1300 in a month. If you have all you want, then you have no issues, but some of us like to have a nice variety.

And I agree with Blue, obama clearly is a threat, or at least he's trying to be. ANY action by a President, in the form of an executive order, clearly usurps the Constitution, and clearly shows a malicious intent. His minions have also demonstrated a clear case of cooperation, especially holder, and that little fiasco he was involved in, and to make it more infuriating, obama made it clear, he would not have to testify.

He may have had little to no success in his efforts, but that doesn't mean he didn't try, or is done trying to get his way, and it's unacceptable.
 
This notion that republicans oppose Obama because he's a black president is fucking stupid and childish, not to mention blatant race-baiting. Like the GOP wouldn't have opposed a President Hillary Clinton as stridently and made it a priority to make her a one-term president.
I never said the GOP as a political party opposes Obama because he's black. I never said the leaders of the party do so. But you can't deny there are some people in the country who are pissed off just because the president is black.

And some black people (Eric Holder) cleared Darren Wilson of any wrongdoing.
Eric Holder himself cleared him ?
Just because the US DA happens to be black it doesn't mean there won't be any racism in the judicial system. The US DA does not have the legal power to decide wether someone should be charged or cleared. He cannot give orders prosecutors and judges.
 
I never said the GOP as a political party opposes Obama because he's black. I never said the leaders of the party do so. But you can't deny there are some people in the country who are pissed off just because the president is black.

Of course there are, just like some people are pissed off at jews because of Israel or more likely, vice versa.


Eric Holder himself cleared him ?
Just because the US DA happens to be black it doesn't mean there won't be any racism in the judicial system. The US DA does not have the legal power to decide wether someone should be charged or cleared. He cannot give orders prosecutors and judges.

Eric Holder had to sign off on it, yes?

And racism is endemic of the human race. You're never going to legislate it away. And having lived overseas, I've seen firsthand that it's not exclusive to white people.
 
And I agree with Blue, obama clearly is a threat, or at least he's trying to be. ANY action by a President, in the form of an executive order, clearly usurps the Constitution, and clearly shows a malicious intent.

Speaking about executive orders...
executive-orders_logo2.png

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...fair-with-executive-orders-or-not-in-1-chart/


Eric Holder had to sign off on it, yes?
Sure. But he can't go "No, I won't sign this. I don't like this. Come back back with the decision I want and I'll sign it." Can he ?
He must respect the choice of prosectors and judges, which is the choice of the people since prosecutors and judges are elected by the people. Musn't he ?

So, even if he had to sign off on it, it doesn't mean the decision that was made was the one he would have made.
 
Sure. But he can't go "No, I won't sign this. I don't like this. Come back back with the decision I want and I'll sign it." Can he ?
He must respect the choice of prosectors and judges, which is the choice of the people since prosecutors and judges are elected by the people. Musn't he ?

So, even if he had to sign off on it, it doesn't mean the decision that was made was the one he would have made.

WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and his civil rights chief, Vanita Gupta, will have the final say on whether the Justice Department will close the case against the officer, Darren Wilson. But it would be unusual for them to overrule the prosecutors on the case, who are still working on a legal memo explaining their recommendation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/u...ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?_r=0

If Holder still felt that after all the evidence presented that Darren Wilson still violated Michael Brown's civil rights, then yes, he could have had the DOJ press charges regardless of the prosecutors' recommendations.
 

Deepcover

Closed Account
People are buying more guns, because the prices are going up. Why not pay $1000 today, as opposed to $1300 in a month. If you have all you want, then you have no issues, but some of us like to have a nice variety.

And I agree with Blue, obama clearly is a threat, or at least he's trying to be. ANY action by a President, in the form of an executive order, clearly usurps the Constitution, and clearly shows a malicious intent. His minions have also demonstrated a clear case of cooperation, especially holder, and that little fiasco he was involved in, and to make it more infuriating, obama made it clear, he would not have to testify.

He may have had little to no success in his efforts, but that doesn't mean he didn't try, or is done trying to get his way, and it's unacceptable.

Pussy :crybaby:
 
Speaking about executive orders...
executive-orders_logo2.png

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...fair-with-executive-orders-or-not-in-1-chart/


Sure. But he can't go "No, I won't sign this. I don't like this. Come back back with the decision I want and I'll sign it." Can he ?
He must respect the choice of prosectors and judges, which is the choice of the people since prosecutors and judges are elected by the people. Musn't he ?

So, even if he had to sign off on it, it doesn't mean the decision that was made was the one he would have made.
Bless your little French heart

The issue is not the number of EO's but rather the absolute misinterpretation of the power and the dispatch in which he exercises that power. It really is quite remarkable and no other president has utilized them to make law but rather to instruct those within the executive branch how they want basic policy carried out and implemented.
 
It really is quite remarkable and no other president has utilized them to make law but rather to instruct those within the executive branch how they want basic policy carried out and implemented.
In other word, they used EO's as a mean to correect bills that were poorly written, right ? But is that what EO's are made for ? Aren't they rather made to grant the president some actual executive power ?
What's the point of electing a president if he does not have real executiver power, if he can't decide anything without congress approval ?

If Holder still felt that after all the evidence presented that Darren Wilson still violated Michael Brown's civil rights, then yes, he could have had the DOJ press charges regardless of the prosecutors' recommendations.
And you would be calling both Holder and Obama dictators. The whole GOP, Fox and every conservative/republican radio would be ranting 24/7 about Obama showing no respect for "Separation of Powers". And you'd all be right to do so.
 
And you would be calling both Holder and Obama dictators. The whole GOP, Fox and every conservative/republican radio would be ranting 24/7 about Obama showing no respect for "Separation of Powers". And you'd all be right to do so.

If Holder rejected his underlings' suggestions and decided to go forward with a prosecution it wouldn't be a "Separation of Powers" issue. Get your constitutional crises right.
 

Ace Boobtoucher

Founder and Captain of the Douchepatrol
If Holder rejected his underlings' suggestions and decided to go forward with a prosecution it wouldn't be a "Separation of Powers" issue. Get your constitutional crises right.

You forgot to tell him to worry about his own fucked up country, but yes.
 

Mayhem

Banned
I say he is a threat and the only thing that stopped him was blue dog democrats and the rest of congress that hold the 2nd amendment in high regard
Anyone that says otherwise has their head in the sand and is a goddamned idiot. Obama is on record even years before becoming president as being anti 2nd amendment
How the hell you were ever deemed fit to wear our country's uniform will forever be one of lifes great mysteries.

I didn't say he's not anti-gun. I said he has never been a threat to the 2nd Amendment.

As with other mass shootings, Friday's killings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., trigger a familiar chain of reactions: horror, remorse, rage and a call for new restrictions on guns.

And in the recent past, at least, that call for action has been followed by little or no legislative action at all.

For example, after the January 2011 shooting of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Ariz., which left six people dead and 13 others injured, President Barack Obama delivered a moving nationally televised address, but a call for new gun laws was conspicuous in its absence.

Instead, in an Arizona Daily Star op-ed, he repeated his support for the Second Amendment and called for stricter enforcement of gun laws already on the books. That position perfectly matches the position of the National Rifle Association, the nation's leading gun owners' advocacy group. But if NRA leaders were pleased, they are not about to show it.

Quite the opposite, there are too many votes to be won, too much money to be raised and too many news members to be enlisted by tagging Obama as "anti-gun" for the NRA or other gun lobbyists to be deterred by mere facts.

Remember the dramatic surge in gun and ammunition sales that immediately followed Obama's election? They're surging again, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a firearms industry trade group, as owners fear the weapons won't be available if Obama is re-elected.

The Wall Street Journal reports that growing social acceptance of guns and demographic and geographic changes in buying patterns suggest the increase in firearm sales that dropped off within a few months last time may hold this time for the long term.

"He's his own stimulus plan for the gun industry," said U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., according to Politico.

Fear of what Obama might do is being fed by NRA leaders like Wayne LaPierre, who warned in February that Obama's plan is to "get re-elected and, with no more elections to worry about, get busy dismantling and destroying our firearms freedom."

The organization's 2008 website, gunbanobama.com, is up and running with its headline, "Obama Would Be The Most Anti-Gun President in History" and a link touting, "If Obama Is Pro-Gun, Why Are Leading Anti-Gun and Anti-Hunting Groups Endorsing Him?"

One might just as easily ask, if Obama is so anti-gun, why did one of those endorsers, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, give Obama an "F" for his gun record the following year? The Brady Campaign and other gun-control advocates continue to express frustration over actions and inaction by Obama that should bring the NRA delight.

Obama has signed a law that permits Amtrak passengers to carry guns in their checked baggage and another that allows visitors to national parks and wildlife refuges to possess concealed guns. He has not pushed for actions he supported in his 2008 campaign, including closing the so-called "gun show loophole" that allows unlicensed private firearm sellers to sell weapons at gun shows without conducting the background checks and reporting requirements that registered gun dealers must conduct.

Yet the NRA, which went after Obama with a $40 million advertising and direct-mail campaign last time around, has set aside at least that much for this go-round, Politico reports. Its biggest hot-button issue is Fast and Furious, the Republican-promoted controversy in which Obama invoked executive privilege to block the disclosure of some Justice Department documents to a House committee involving a gun-running investigation. If the operation was really part of an Obama plot to ban guns, as some of his critics charge, it would be a far-fetched way to do it.

In this way, the NRA, which likes to call itself the nation's "oldest continuously operating civil rights organization," exhibits one of the worst attributes that critics often attribute to conventional civil rights organizations: manufactured outrage. If they don't have a real enemy of gun rights in the White House, they hammer the administration with inflated accusations and unfounded predictions anyway.

But activist gun owners tend to come from the same demographic that gives the least support to Obama: older white men from rural or outer suburban communities. Even unfounded accusations carry convincing weight with people who already are inclined to believe them

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...i-gun-president-gun-show-loophole-nra-leaders



And Blue, you once said, "don't start nothing, there won't be nothing." I already told you that you don't get to impugn mine or anyone's military record. You still don't you demented, drug-addicted alcoholic. You're a pathetic little coward who wouldn't know service if it was glued to the end of your nose. So fuck you and fuck the deranged crackwhore who gave birth to you. If you want to go down this road again punk, let's go down this road. It worked out really well for you the last time.
 
Mayhem, I don't agree with probably most of what you say here, but as far as your service goes, you have my utmost respect. You put your life on the line for your countrymen. That goes for Ace and any other veterans here.
 
Top