Said it on the old swirve forums and i will stand by it now!

no1 cares anymore.

it's only because Bush naps more than Obama now. if we could get Obama to take more naps he would be greater than Bush.

You were talking about Barack Obama back on Swirve?

he did few times and once his thread got deleted and he prolly got few days ban too.

I did. I used the middle name and that sent ol Mick on a rampage. I got like a 3 day ban for it at one point lol

I agree afro, obama is a lot better than the W, bush.
as both president ford and president carter stated he was the worse prez ever.

Mickster was a tool

We really need to get Obama not to take so many vacations on the taxpayers dime. That would go a long way towards reducing the massive deficits. Knock a couple of hundred million off a year that way.

Yes. That's clearly the problem.

b

Isn't a president suppose to be a LEADER??? 5 years later think we still waiting for him to go to Leadership training

Obama is a fairly good president. Check out this site listing all he has done: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/...55.php#13687592372841&;action=collapse_widget&id=7926414

the bulk of that list he had little to do with but if your going to credit him for them that notably you should equally credit him for Benghazi, Syria civil war, sandy hook, Boston marathon... etc.

Lol troll.

Kindness's list stands for itself, Oceana. Denying he had anything to do with any of that is just foolish. As long as the President has the veto power they have, it's reasonable to give them a reasonable portion of the credit for any legislative achievements they sign off on.

Furthermore, blaming him for things like Sandy Hook or the Boston Marathon bombing? THAT'S where you're getting into a correlation vs. causation argument.

the "stimulus" package hadnt even released money before it was claimed effective. the funds claimed effective for the stimulus package where from TARP, something bush signed not obama.

we still have troops in iraq, and the reason "combat" troops are out of iraq is because we refused to hold US soldiers accountable for war crimes in iraq.

any president would have taken the chance to get osama. i dont give that credit to anyone.

we still torture, we still treat inmates at guantanamo as sub human. most have proven they where never involved in anything and are still being held. they have not seen a trial, nor have they seen family in 6+ years.

"25. Protected Two Liberal Seats on the U.S. Supreme Court." - how the fluff is this relevant.

eliminating the f22 was good, keeping the f35 completely negates getting rid of the f22. its a fluff plane that doesnt do its job better than current jets, and its more expensive.

part of this list is feel good bullfluff and stuff most presidents would have passed regardless. congress would have passed a number of things even through a veto.

the removal of mubarak is probably the greatest mistake we have made in the middle east since we invaded iraq. egypt has become more hostile to religious minorities, america, and israel. while israel is a whole nother issue, having those 2 fight it out is a bad fluffing idea and the people that seem to be leading egypt right now act like they want that to happen.

i disliked bush, i dislike obama. i dislike both presidents for different things. i will admit however both presidents have done good. Tarp was good, the health care reform was good. the credit card reform was an attempt at good, but badly designed and has shown its flaws. now we need real student loan/cost of education reform.

ps: of course the shuttle was unsafe. it launched people into space of a fluffing rocket. what did people expect, never to have a boom?

Obama is at least working for the people. Bush was a lackie

obama is working for himself. the people are going to suffer for his pride.

hussy wants the feds to pay his medical bills, or give him carte blanche citizenship? haven't they done both those, already?

Obama is a LIAR! HE LIES! He's done nothing BUT lie to the people about everything. It's criminal.

What US president hasn't lied to the people?
Also you people are always quick to blame.

I originally thought that a comment like this is worthless because you didn't bring up anything specific. It's basically just name-calling with no evidence to back anything up. In addition, it's such a vague meaningless thing to say about a politician at this point that it's pretty much just a cliche.

But then I thought: There's actually a website that fact-checks many of our elected leaders: Politifact. Let's use that website and see how Pres. Obama compares to other officials.

Pres. Obama
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/

True - 22%
Mostly True - 24%
Half True - 27%
Mostly False - 12%
False - 14%
Pants on Fire - 1%

So if we stick the top three and bottom three categories together to simplify things, we've got a 73/27 split on statements that are at least mostly truthful, and only 1% of his evaluated statements have been marked as intentionally misleading.

Here are some of the main Republican leaders:
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/john-boehner/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/eric-cantor/
http://www.politifact.com/...nalities/mitch-mcconnell/

We'll put them all together to save space, they'll be in the same order posted above (Boehner, Cantor, McConnell)

True - 30/25/20
Mostly True - 5/11/20
Half True - 9/11/20
Mostly False - 20/25/10
False - 32/18/30
Pants on Fire - 4/11/0

Now, in fairness, McConnell only had like 10 things he said that they reviewed, so sample size is an issue here, but again, looking at the top three vs. the bottom three categories again:

Boehner - 44/56
Cantor - 46/54
McConnell - 60/40

So Obama appears to be more truthful on evaluated statements than any of these three.

Let's do one more thing though, let's look at the list of most recent "Pants on Fire" ratings.
http://www.politifact.com/...meter/rulings/pants-fire/

On the entire first page of entries, all but one statement evaluated as "pants on fire" a phrase used when it's not only false, but said intentionally, knowing it's false, are anti-Obama statements. The only "Pants on Fire" from the Democratic side of the aisle comes from Harry Reid. On the 2nd page, there's one Obama comment along with the rest all Republican attacks on Obama (There are 20 entries per page).

So, despite the fact that you haven't given any support and made a claim so general that it's hard to prove either way, I've actually done the work for you to show you just how wrong you are.

You're welcome, Cerberus. :)

*claps* you gotta love those republicans lol

Twain, who runs the site you are using as a reference?

This is the question here. Answer that. I'll lay you odds that the site is owned by some libtard organization hip deep in federal cash and political good will from the Obama administration. Take a good look at the hearings on the Extortion 17 operation, and/or the Benghazi investigation. Take a good hard look at the FACTS that come out of those hearings. Then come back here and tell me they are telling the truth.

Oh, since we're going to weight things.

In each of the incidents I mentioned LIVES were lost.

That should carry the HIGHEST weight, don't you think?

When Hillary traveled to the middle east, the U.S. positioned a carrier strike force just offshore. Just in case she needed rescuing.

The incident at the Benghazi mission lasted for many hours, yet there was ZERO military assets there to rescue our Ambassador and his staff, and Hillary's comment on the record is "What difference does it make?"

PUHLEEEEEEEEZE!

You do realize the big evidence that the Republicans used to try to blame the Obama administration for Benghazi were a bunch of ALTERED emails, right?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...azi-emails_n_3289428.html

Secondly, Politifact is run by the Tampa Bay Times and has won the Pulitzer Prize. It's not a hack partisan site.

Lastly, while it's very sad, embassy attacks happen all the time. In fact, here's an article with a whole big list of embassy attacks that have occured during the Bush administration, and none of them were considered a huge scandal. Wanna know why? Because when a person is working as an ambassador in a place where we're not particularly well liked, it's very possible someone might try to take out their hatred of the United States on that person.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...at-occurre_b_3246847.html

And before you say it: Yes, the Huffington Post is generally fairly liberal. But if you search for "altered emails Benghazi" you can find plenty of other sources for similar articles, and for the second article, ignore all the discussion you want, but the list itself has dates. Unless you want to go through each date and fact-check them, the whole "liberal media bias" line is a bullfluff cop-out.

You're believing the worst about this president not because there's reasonable evidence to believe the worst, but because you want to believe the worst about him, and every thing you see on the news that supports this view you hold onto and every thing that refutes this belief, you discard like it's immaterial.

On your other topic: Extortion 17.

I'm willing to try to remain open-minded, but so far in doing a simple Google News search, I've really only found a few articles that weren't pure editorials.

Get me some links, Cerb.

there is a carrier task force in the persian gulf at all times or close to it at all times. they run missions for afghanistan, iraq, pakistan, and provide a first strike/deterrent to iran and any other hostile force in the area. the fact that you think they moved to the gulf just for clinton is hilarious considering they have been there since 2001 and havent moved.

don't they have a permanent naval base in bahrain? (yes they do, naval support activity, bahrain)

twain, whereas i won't argue the merits of the site, i will ask, however, where the people obama employs to tell his "pants on fire lies" *for* him fall on that list?

and is the issue so much that benghazi happened, or that they pants on fire lied about *why* it happened for so long and to oh so many people?

I would think you have to be very liberal to say the Huff is only fairly liberal.

And yes the ambassador was in a dangerous place, so where was the proper security? why then make up fictional excuses? and then continue to lie? Yes, there are and have been numerous embassies attacks over the years, but only those like Jimmy and O'man get ambassadors killed.

George W Bush politifact (this isn't all that relevant since only like 4 of his statements were reviewed)


True-1 (25%)
Mostly True-1 (25%)
Half True- 0
Mostly False- 1 (25%)
False-1 (25%)
Pants on Fire-0

About the Benghazi incident, several things come to mind that really, really piss me off.

#1. Why do we need to "hire" a "professinal" local security force? What's wrong with the MARDET stationed at every embassy?

Considering that an embassy is widely considered sovereign territory of the nation who is hosted there. Why was no military rescue effort conducted by the "Nearby" U.S. Military missions?

Who's responsibility is that? I can tell you this much. It falls squarely on the shoulders of the "Commander in Chief" who just happens to be "Obama" at this time.

#2. Why was the lack of options for a military rescue hidden from the U.S. Public for so long? Was it because of the election?

The election was everything to this power and money hungry man. He was willing to allow people to DIE in order to further his political ends. This is unforgivable in my book.

Political ends of an election under the US constitution do not include sacrificial anodes, nor disposable people.

Let's be honest here. Reagan would have gone ballistic over this incident. Look at what he did to Gaddafi over the incident in the med when he was president. He made it personal and ordered A6 strikes against Gaddafi's personal villas, and palaces.

Going as far back as dealing with the Barbary pirates, the U.S. Government has ordered U.S. Military forces into the region to settle things, and they DID.

Obama is weak, and in his efforts to hide his weaknesses, he was willing to allow valuable U.S. Citizens to be killed, then covered up his involvement in the incident, notwithstanding the FACT that he is ULTIMATELY responsible as the Commander in Chief.

He's a freaking politician, and what we really need is a leader.

amen

I love the selective memory of Obama-haters.

Obama's weak!

1) He made the call to take a risk and send U.S. military personnel into Pakistan to take out Osama bin Laden. Someone earlier (don't care enough to look who) said "anyone would make that call" but that's simply not true. Many politicians would have tried to coordinate with Pakistan to try to avoid offending an ally by sending militants into their country.

2) He very effectively handled Libya as far as the ouster of the previous forces. There were, to my recollection, 0 American casualties, since we basically were just enforcing a no-fly-zone and helping the rebels to defeat Qaddafi.

3) He's been willing to use drones to take out people that have been considered terrorist threats, even to the point that people are criticizing him for playing judge, jury and executioner on these people (a fair criticism).

If you want to make specific claims about Obama's handling of situations, like what you've done in a few specific instances (#1 and #2 above), I find that interesting, Cerberus. I end up researching these things myself and sometimes learn things that make me think you're full of crap and sometimes learn things that show you have a valid point. But blanket statements are just ridiculous.

For instance, I think we're too passive in Syria. I think the drone attacks, randomly bombing people without any real certainty that they're an imminent threat to the U.S., is overreaching. But again, a blanket derisive statement about Pres. Obama like (paraphrasing): "He's weak! He's not a leader! He's a lying liar!" is vague and meaningless, not to mention pretty easy to show that it's a bunch of crap anyway.

That's the reason I left former Pres. Bush out. Since they've only recently evaluated 4 of his statements, it's not a great sample size. Even Mitch McConnell only had 10 recent statements that they've evaluated, so that was a bit suspect too (which I admitted when I posted the original information).

I'd say, overall, I feel the need to defend this president more than I otherwise would because I perceive there to be a calculated attempt by the Republicans in Congress to basically undermine Pres. Obama and prevent any of his agenda from going through, even something pretty innocuous. Pres. Obama has won two elections. The ideas that he and the Congressional Democrats put forth deserve legitimate debate and votes, not dismissal because it would represent a legislative victory for a President they clearly neither like nor respect.

I would hope we'd all agree that who brought forth a bill and who it'd be a "victory" for isn't as important as the merit of the bill itself.

Hmm

1. clinton tried to kill osama years ago. didnt work. then got thrown to the back burner.

2. there was nothing to handle. they had horribly outdated equipment and soldiers ill trained or prepared to operate it, and they couldnt launch any sort of craft more than a helicopter at low altitude. btw, it wasnt even the US that provided the majority of the air power, it was europe. we provided surface ships and a few subs to launch missiles and run a blockade. people act like obama commands the military in combat and forget we have admirals, and generals that do all the real ordering.

3. hes using drones to kill US citizens without trial. he has completely ignored the laws of this country to execute citizens of this country. whatever the reason given, this should give everyone a reason to worry.

theres a reason we dont get to involved in syria, and its directly related to egypt and how fluffed up that situation has become since the power vacuum let extremists into power. actions in syria would tend to use israeli bases for sorties and supplies. thats a bad thing right now. we still have a cluster fluff in iraq, 2 potential civil wars reigniting in libya and egypt, turkey not wanting us anywhere near them, and saudi arabia telling us no.

I am Canadian... So I do not know much U.S Politics but honestly for whatever reason I am usually a lot more content with the democratic candidate Vs Republic. Bottom line is the world is a fluffed up place and good luck pleasing everyone with everything no matter who you are or what your campaign was based on.

1) And Bush took his eye off the ball when dealing with Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden was able to slip through the cracks and escape for another decade.

2) I'm not forgetting that we have actual military people in charge of the specifics of the military decisions. Just as all of Obama's (Bush's/Clinton's/etc) options were given to him by military personnel who have much more knowledge and experience than Pres. Obama clearly does. However, sitting presidents are given disproportional credit and blame for the things that happen during their presidency. Lincoln is credited for everything that came out of the Civil War. FDR is credited with winning WW2 and ending the Depression. Johnson and Nixon will forever be blamed for the mishandling of Vietnam. Clinton will be forever credited with financial prosperity and a balanced budget. Bush will be blamed for the economy crumbling, and unless there's a significant turnaround in the next couple of years, Obama will be blamed for sitting during a poor economy as well. But he'll also be credited for getting Osama bin Laden.

The simple facts are that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida attacked the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001. Pres. Bush went after Afghanistan as retaliation, and instead of sticking with the mission to defeat the Taliban and seek out Osama bin Laden, he pushed for an invasion of Iraq as well. He failed to get OBL. While Obama was President, OBL was killed and is no longer a threat.

Is this a highly simplified version of the facts? Of course it is. But in this kind of debate, those are the rules of the debate, because the President is more powerful than any one man in Congress or on the SC.

Oh, and one last point: The drone strikes are worrisome, but were you one of the people who was willing to forgive the atrocities of Guantanamo Bay on people who weren't even charged with a crime? If you're going to turn into a crusader for the rights of the people, you have to always be a crusader for the rights of the people, not just when it's politically convenient for you to do so.

huh? i dont agree with guantanamo bay, i said so earlier in this thread.

and yes, osama bin laden attacked the US. to them we have been waging a war upon them for 20 years+. we stick our fluff constantly into the middle east and then try to burn the place down when it gives us a little itch.

lets just pretend, oh say north korea has been in control of our economy and government for 30 years. lets pretend everything we do comes at the price of lives, dignity, and our country being gutted for resources. wanna run for office? better have north koreas blessings or chances are you will end up dead or in jail. anything you want to do as a citizen must be either under the radar or approved by the koreans. if its not, you are a hostile terrorist.

you cant pretend we invaded a country under that false pretense, considering it was known OBL was mainly in pakistan not afghanistan at the time anywho. he wasnt even from either of those 2 countries. not a single 9/11 suspect was from afghanistan or iraq, 90% where from our good ally and super best friend saudi arabia. we invaded iraq, a country who probably would have helped us find osama under the cover of lies. we have slaughtered the civilians in both countries in the name of fighting terrorism while committing the very terror we are supposedly fighting against. we have made more extremists since 2001 than osama could have ever dreamed of.


the "war on terror" has backfired horribly and has resulted in a world that hates us more so than ever, has eroded our civil rights, killed thousands of innocents, and turned the rest of the middle east against us.

ps, no one will remember who kill osama bin laden in 100 years because its not historically important. its not a turning point, it made no difference.

Color me surprised. I figured you'd be the typical conservative who simply applauded everything that Bush did and hated everything Obama did.

The whole thing should have been moot at this point had GW taken the appropriate action when they attacked us on 9/11.

IF GW would have had a sack and not just been in bed with them, he would have ordered a nuclear strike against their then KNOWN location and simply stated that "Does anyone else wish to try anything that stupid?" And the problem would not exist anymore.

Retribution and revenge have a purpose. They make the guy thinking of screwing you contemplate more than just his own stupid idea.

You know unpro has a pretty good point about how we tend to go and mess with the Middle East from time to time. That's why so many of them hate us and why so many of them are willing to demonize us.

Dropping a nuke on the region just because a small percentage of people over there are extremists over there willing to fight a jihad on us is going to kill a tremendous number of innocents and basically make everyone else over there that might be ambivalent towards us into people that hate the U.S. as well.

And that's beyond the fact that it's completely heartless.

the US has dropped the only nuclear bombs on a foreign nation in history. i do not want that on our collective conscience ever again.


and no, im closer to a socialist libertarian than any other thing.

Twain, there were thousands of them dancing in the streets over there when the attack was on the news, that was on the news as well.

As for being heartless, perhaps I am, I don't give a fluff about what the rest of the world thinks about the U.S. We managed quite well without their input prior to WWII, and we will manage again, providing that Osama doesn't finish selling us down the river.

Oops, I meant Obama.

the usps is dying simply because its a dying communication method. you want them to thrive? start buying stamps.

they dislike russian :P

So the guys you funded, armed, and trained; attack you killing a few thousand. And you want to slaughter millions indiscriminately? You know I'm sure there's probably a few Russian and Chinese over there; you'd be cool with them nuking you off the face of the earth and leaving America a giant crater for killing some of their citizens right?

Or maybe you could take the alternative option and not train, fund, and arm terrorists in the future.

This thread takes on a new light with all the recent scandals. In truth I think it's hard to say which president was better and which was worse. A lot of the things both get praise for and a lot of the things both get heck for are things that were a long time coming.

The financial collapse gets blamed on Bush; but it came about as a result of deregulation and oversight that started back with Presidents like Reagan and even Clinton. The Stimulus package is generally credited to Obama but Bush was the one who first got it rolling and passed the first portions. Meanwhile Obama gets blamed for the lack of oversight on the bailout, but that again was started by Bush.


What I will say is that some of that list was utter BS (the list of Obama's accomplishments). Some of it was fine, but some of it was just BS. Yes, you're out of Iraq; but you're out because of a deal that was signed with the Iraqi government requiring you to leave by then, and that was signed by President Bush. And you do not get credit for Libya. The response to Libya was overseen and managed by Canada; we get credit for that. You get credit for Iraq and Afghanistan which you managed; but we managed Libya. So no, Obama doesn't get credit that.