How Bad Was 'W'?

[acook02]

Originally Posted by CFH420

Gas was cheaper

Food was cheaper

More people were employed

Cant argue with facts


W>obama


Fact.

Gas was cheaper?? What fucking planet are you from? Jobs?? You forget W was gonna let them auto industry die, yet bail out his wall street pals.

[freespiritx]

Up to this point, the poll suggests that the votes for "W" being the worst ever, are more than all the other categories votes combined.
The people have spoken. "W" is the worst. Surprise, surprise.

[shootersa]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

The highest unemployment under President Obama was 10.0 percent during 2009.

The highest unemployment under President Reagan was 10.8 percent during November and December of 1982. From September 1982 to June 1983 unemployment was over 10.0 percent.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

As usual, DL hides the REAL issues with selective numbers. Obama has presided over the worst unemployment in recent history. More people, unemployed for longer, than under any president since FDR.

And it belongs to Obama and no one else. Can't blame this one on W, or the publicans, or anyone else.

[Yaztromo]

He may have been the worst, but at least you have the comfort of knowing he was better than Blair.

[richief]

Originally Posted by Yaztromo

He may have been the worst, but at least you have the comfort of knowing he was better than Blair.

Blair may have been the more obvious liar, but he could tie his own shoelaces.

[Needstocum69]

First of all you can't blame a president for everything Afghanistan had to been started due to 9/11
Iraq is another story don't know what the real truth was to that one but i do know it wasn't the presidents fault only Congress can declare war that and we made the mistake of nation building that is supposed to be for the citizens of said country to do and the 2008 financial meltdown was just waiting to happen: bad financial choices with lots of money riding on the line equals impending implosion it was unfortunate that he was president at the time (poor bastard )

[clarise]

Originally Posted by freespiritx

Up to this point, the poll suggests that the votes for "W" being the worst ever, are more than all the other categories votes combined.
The people have spoken. "W" is the worst. Surprise, surprise.

Yes, Johnny Depp, it is no surprise. Since my fun little poll is less about 'W', per se, than our susceptibility to the official media narrative.

It is especially enjoyable to observe when current events break the script. At the risk of turning this into another Walker thread, I'll serve the point of this poll by pointing out that The Boston Globe didn't even report Walker's victory on the following morning, because Wisconsin was still counting votes. Even though, at the press deadline, Walker had a 10 point lead. What a squeaker, eh?

Yet, if Walker had been a half a point behind in the vote count, the Globe would have stopped the presses and waited all night to declare his resounding defeat.

As for the papers that did go to press, they used language like "survived," and "squeaked by."

What is important here is not that Walker won the recall vote. The important point is that the reporting exposes the media's bias and demonstrates that most American papers and cable news outlets no longer have journalists. They have propagandists, and that is why they are all failing. That election broke the script-- that is, broke the narrative. No one left of center has any idea what to do with it, because their brainwashers are flummoxed and can't inform them.

Even President Obama does not know what to do with it, and unless I am mistaken, on one of his many recent fundraisers (when he should have been memorializing D-Day), he was heard to accuse Romney of not appreciating the implications of Walker's victory. I don't have the quote... I may be wrong that he actually said that, but if he did say it, then it would have to be the most surreal and moronic thing he has said in four years.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by clarise

The important point is that the reporting exposes the media's bias and demonstrates that most American papers and cable news outlets no longer have journalists. They have propagandists, and that is why they are all failing. That election broke the script-- that is, broke the narrative. No one left of center has any idea what to do with it, because their brainwashers are flummoxed and can't inform them.

I read about Walker's victory the next day in The Washington Post and The New York Times. They did not say that the vote was close. They did say that exit polls indicated that if the presidential election had been held that day Obama would have taken Wisconsin by a comfortable margin.

Somewhere, it might have been here on XNXX, I read a passage by Franklin Roosevelt saying that he opposed unions for government employees. We know that he favored unions in private industry. One of the slogans the labor movement made back then was, "The president wants you to join the union."

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by shootersa

As usual, DL hides the REAL issues with selective numbers. Obama has presided over the worst unemployment in recent history. More people, unemployed for longer, than under any president since FDR.

And it belongs to Obama and no one else. Can't blame this one on W, or the publicans, or anyone else.

What about the Republican House of Representatives? Don't they share some of the blame?

That is an interesting chart. Nevertheless, Republicans are not proposing anything to reduce unemployment that has worked very well in the past. Cuts in government employment will increase the overall unemployment rate. Cuts in taxes will raise the national debt.

The only time I can think of when tax cuts can be credited for reducing unemployment was the 1920s, when the GOP dominated the country.

From 1921 to 1929 the top tax rate declined from 73 percent to 24 percent.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=213

From 1920 to 1928 unemployment declined from 5.2 percent to 4.2 percent.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html

The Great Depression followed.

[xnxxbob]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

What about the Republican House of Representatives? Don't they share some of the blame?

That is an interesting chart. Nevertheless, Republicans are not proposing anything to reduce unemployment that has worked very well in the past. Cuts in government employment will increase the overall unemployment rate. Cuts in taxes will raise the national debt.

The only time I can think of when tax cuts can be credited for reducing unemployment was the 1920s, when the GOP dominated the country.

From 1921 to 1929 the top tax rate declined from 73 percent to 24 percent.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=213

From 1920 to 1928 unemployment declined from 5.2 percent to 4.2 percent.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html

The Great Depression followed.

If Republicans had control of BOTH houses, you might have a point, be it a small point.

Obama gets the full blame.....like ALL Presidents do and have in the past.

[NoOneFamous]

Both Jimmy Carter and Bush Lite are perfect examples of the Peter Principle.

Now Jimmy Carter had the Camp David Accords to his credit. He was/is a fine Christian gentleman, but he was not a very good President. (My father carried the nuclear football for Ford and Carter)

Reagan was a total disaster who should have been impeached for IranContra.

Bush Senior was a nice guy and a semi-decent President.

Clinton was a good President and a lousy human being

Bush Lite was a failure on multiple levels.

[nighttouch]

Obviously this was started by a liberal Democrat and there is nothing wrong with that as long as they remember that they are only going to believe that Democrats are great presidents. Because Reagan was a whole lot better than Clinton, who by the way, like Obama had control of both houses and couldn't get his healthplan passed. Obama pushed through a flawed plan with his majority in both houses even though now some of his own team said that they incorrectly reported the wrong financial projections. It creates a bigger government and thus the need for increased taxes.As Reagan said the worst thing that you can hear is We are the government and we are here to help you.

[nighttouch]

Originally Posted by NoOneFamous

Both Jimmy Carter and Bush Lite are perfect examples of the Peter Principle.

Now Jimmy Carter had the Camp David Accords to his credit. He was/is a fine Christian gentleman, but he was not a very good President. (My father carried the nuclear football for Ford and Carter)

Reagan was a total disaster who should have been impeached for IranContra.

Bush Senior was a nice guy and a semi-decent President.

Clinton was a good President and a lousy human being

Bush Lite was a failure on multiple levels.

Reagen helped bring down the wall and restored faith in America that Carter blew.His leadership restored America.Clinton dumbed down overseas intelligence assets , gave the Chinese access to nuclear secrets at Los Alamos and bumbled on the first WTC bombing. The economy grew under GW, even though we had to respond to 911 and warned everyone that it was not going to be a quick war. Ever notice that once we went over there, there were no more terrorist attacks similar to 911 even though Bin Laden said that was the first of many against the great Satan?

[xnxxbob]

Originally Posted by nighttouch

Reagen helped bring down the wall and restored faith in America that Carter blew.His leadership restored America.Clinton dumbed down overseas intelligence assets , gave the Chinese access to nuclear secrets at Los Alamos and bumbled on the first WTC bombing. The economy grew under GW, even though we had to respond to 911 and warned everyone that it was not going to be a quick war. Ever notice that once we went over there, there were no more terrorist attacks similar to 911 even though Bin Laden said that was the first of many against the great Satan?

+10

[NoOneFamous]

Originally Posted by nighttouch

Reagen helped bring down the wall and restored faith in America that Carter blew.His leadership restored America.Clinton dumbed down overseas intelligence assets , gave the Chinese access to nuclear secrets at Los Alamos and bumbled on the first WTC bombing. The economy grew under GW, even though we had to respond to 911 and warned everyone that it was not going to be a quick war. Ever notice that once we went over there, there were no more terrorist attacks similar to 911 even though Bin Laden said that was the first of many against the great Satan?

Every President from Truman on helped bring down the USSR, Ronnie Raygun just happened to be there when it fell. Ronnie Raygun also cut and ran from Beirut. He aided and abetted terrorists with Arms for Hostages. Look at the national debt before and after he left office.

I supported Bush the Lesser when he sent US forces into Afghanistan, there was no justification what so ever for Iraq. Bush fought two major wars with a peacetime army on a peace time budget. He was and is a joke. BTW, I am not a Truther.

[shootersa]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

What about the Republican House of Representatives? Don't they share some of the blame?

That is an interesting chart. Nevertheless, Republicans are not proposing anything to reduce unemployment that has worked very well in the past. Cuts in government employment will increase the overall unemployment rate. Cuts in taxes will raise the national debt.

The only time I can think of when tax cuts can be credited for reducing unemployment was the 1920s, when the GOP dominated the country.

From 1921 to 1929 the top tax rate declined from 73 percent to 24 percent.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=213

From 1920 to 1928 unemployment declined from 5.2 percent to 4.2 percent.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html

The Great Depression followed.

Now DL, you can't get away with that; Obama's answer (and congress went along with it) was to throw money at it. Nope, sorry, this mess belongs to the Obama administration. If you're going to blame Bush for what happened during his time, ignoring the crap that led up to it, you have to lay blame for the unemployment mess at Obama's feet. States collectively owe $30 BILLION to the feds for long term unemployment benefits paid out since 2009. Without those extensions, at least that tab wouldn't be coming due after the election.

That $30 BILLION debt will be paid by employer taxes; the average cost of unemployment tax per employee will more than double; from an average $124 per employee to over $275 per employee.

If you think Wal Mart is going to happily fork over an ADDITIONAL $300 MILLION after the election, you are mistaken. WalMart will cut employment or hold at current levels. The result is going to be a longer "recession".

And that's just ONE of the tabs that will have to be paid once the elections are over.

Face it. Obama is bar none the worst president we've had.

The amazing thing is, people are still buying his "hope and change" mantra. Yep. I hope we change.

[xnxxbob]

It appears that Obama’s bovine scatology is resulting in inverted cranium rectumitus for the minions mesmerized by the intellectual verbosity.
If this condition is left untreated, It will lead to severe liberal depression within 5 months.

The Hopey and Changey thing didn't work

[NoOneFamous]

Originally Posted by shootersa

Now DL, you can't get away with that; Obama's answer (and congress went along with it) was to throw money at it. Nope, sorry, this mess belongs to the Obama administration. If you're going to blame Bush for what happened during his time, ignoring the crap that led up to it, you have to lay blame for the unemployment mess at Obama's feet. States collectively owe $30 BILLION to the feds for long term unemployment benefits paid out since 2009. Without those extensions, at least that tab wouldn't be coming due after the election.

That $30 BILLION debt will be paid by employer taxes; the average cost of unemployment tax per employee will more than double; from an average $124 per employee to over $275 per employee.

If you think Wal Mart is going to happily fork over an ADDITIONAL $300 MILLION after the election, you are mistaken. WalMart will cut employment or hold at current levels. The result is going to be a longer "recession".

And that's just ONE of the tabs that will have to be paid once the elections are over.

Face it. Obama is bar none the worst president we've had.

The amazing thing is, people are still buying his "hope and change" mantra. Yep. I hope we change.

Oh please, when we were under attack on 9/11 this country needed leadership. Bush sure as hell wasn't providing it. First, he is informed and for what 8 minutes? he has that deer stuck in headlights look. Then he runs and hides in a bunker in Louisiana. The only one providing leadership was Guliani.

[clarise]

Obama is perhaps not the least intelligent president we have ever had.

Yet a great many people are convinced he is the brightest by far.

In fact, many Americans can tell us Obama's IQ. How do they know that? Obama has never released it.

A talking head (Chris Matthews, I believe) once remarked that Barack Obama's IQ must be up around 160. The unsubstantiated bit of utter nonsense went from coast to coast in about a day, and parrots transformed it from nonsensical hearsay into truth.

Now we are called racists if we doubt it.

Meanwhile, the same press corps that transformed Barack Obama into a genius has been marketing George W. Bush as a fool.

Yet, George W. Bush's IQ, achievement scores and Yale transcripts are part of the public record. In fact, his scores were available during his second term run against Senator John Kerry, a man whom the press marketed as "a thinker" and a "smart choice" during that election cycle.

And thanks to press corps marketing-- i.e., propaganda, it is not generally known that George W. Bush, "the fool," has a higher IQ, higher achievement scores, and a higher Yale GPA than "the thinker," Senator John Kerry.

Now, if we are asked to guess who is smarter, Barack Obama or George W. Bush, most of us will instantly reply, "No brainer. The Nobel Peace Prize Winner is a heck of a lot smarter than the Fool."

Yet, if we are asked to guess whether Barack Obama is smarter than John Kerry, many of us have to stop and think about it. Because Barack Obama has an IQ of 160-something, we've been told, and John Kerry is "the thinker," we've been told.

Yet 'W' is more intelligent than John Kerry, by every objective measure.

Someone above says that 'W' fought two wars "with a peace time army and a peace time budget." Setting aside the question of what, exactly, a "peace time army" is, it has probably escaped the attention of many that:

Obama ended one of those "peace time wars" on W's schedule, not his own. Yet W got zero credit for Obama's adherence to W's drawdown schedule.

The other peace time war has been of a much larger scope, with more babies killed and more bodybags returning to Dover AFB than W ever conceived. But that war is still W's fault, according to the media narrative.

More bodybags are coming home than ever before, and the press does not cover them.

The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier is receiving more tenants than ever, but the press does not cover it, because the Great One does not visit.

Gitmo is still open for business, and they are building (or have recently finished) a $750,000 soccer field. Not exactly winding that operation down, are they?

Cindy Sheehan still holds her picket signs, because babies are dying in larger numbers than ever under the auspices of the vaunted Nobel Peace Prize winner, but the press does not cover her, because her demonstrations have become unseemly.

Barack has started (or piled on in) a couple brand new "peace time wars" himself. Not only Libya, but Obama has also caved in to all the social media outrage of Kony and committed U.S. special forces to an expensive and perilous manhunt through the jungles of Africa. But those are good "peace time wars." According to the narrative.

Barack Obama is recently known to have said to Reverend Jeremiah Wright, "Your problem is that you have to tell the truth."

Reverend Wright replied, "That is a good problem to have."

Indeed.

I wonder... what is Reverend Wright's IQ?

[shootersa]

Originally Posted by NoOneFamous

Oh please, when we were under attack on 9/11 this country needed leadership. Bush sure as hell wasn't providing it. First, he is informed and for what 8 minutes? he has that deer stuck in headlights look. Then he runs and hides in a bunker in Louisiana. The only one providing leadership was Guliani.

Bush did not immediately react when told of the attacks because he didn't want to cause a panic. What would it have served if he had jumped up and run out of the room I wonder..........other than to give you a different detail to vilify him with? He did not run and hide in a bunker in Louisiana, On Air Force One he wanted to return to Washington DC and in fact ordered the pilots to fly there. En route he was convinced by staff that Washington DC was the worst possible place for him to be, since additional attacks were still possible. He landed in Louisiana long enough to address the country, then flew to SAC command headquarters in Nebraska, then back to Washington.

He did not "hide in a bunker in Louisiana".

When you can demonstrate the ability to state accurate facts and discuss issues objectively I would be happy to discuss how 9/11 and 10 years of war could have been prevented by Clinton.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by NoOneFamous

Oh please, when we were under attack on 9/11 this country needed leadership. Bush sure as hell wasn't providing it. First, he is informed and for what 8 minutes? he has that deer stuck in headlights look. Then he runs and hides in a bunker in Louisiana. The only one providing leadership was Guliani.

Shootersa (above) is absolutely correct that this account of events is utterly ridiculous.

Yet, this is the account that is generally believed.

The aspect that makes all of this so unsettling is that this account is not factually wrong. Bush did remain in a classroom with school children for eight minutes. Air Force One did set down in a bunker in Lousiana. Giuliani did provide highly visible leadership.

And yet, Shootersa is also correct that the generally believed accounting of events, as echoed by NoOneFamous, is utterly ridiculous.

No doubt NoOneFamous regards himself as well informed. No doubt most of the charter members of MoveOn.org regard themselves similarly.

And yet, their positions are utterly ridiculous.

The purportedly well informed seldom ask themselves: "How do I know what I know? How do I know anything that I know? Are my teachers to be trusted?"

Now, the left will retort that Fox News is no better than The New York Times and CNN/MSNBC. True, of course.

I do not claim to be better informed than anyone.

I think the difference, and the part that alarms me, is the surety-- or as Sarah Palin would say, the certitude of all those people who have responded to this poll by voting that George W. Bush is the worst president we have ever had. They are certain. They are absolutely sure.

I am not saying that I am right about everything, while they are wrong about everything.

What I am saying is that I am neither certain, nor sure. About anything.

[Geraldo]

Originally Posted by clarise

This question is important. There is one right answer, and any other answer may soon land you in chains.

how bad was bush? an embarassment to his party, to his country and the rest of the world. the bush versus gore scandal in 2000 was theatrical, it was never supposed to have happened, in a sane world. if gore had of become president, i think many of us would be better off the world over.

over ten years later bush has been vindicated by obama by continuing the war on terrorism and according to this report... http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news...ectid=10810633 ... obama is george bush on steroids.

renounce your government, move out of the united states if you don't like it there, then come to new zealand. however our government here sings the same idealist chorus.

[richief]

Bad man, really bad, the worst, I have never seen a letter like it, I thought V was bad but this fucker is twice as nasty.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by clarise

I think the difference, and the part that alarms me, is the surety-- or as Sarah Palin would say, the certitude of all those people who have responded to this poll by voting that George W. Bush is the worst president we have ever had. They are certain. They are absolutely sure.

Saying George W. Bush was worse than someone else is like talking about whether Rocky Marciano in his prime could have beaten Jack Dempsey or Mike Tyson in his prime. We can never really know how another president would have handled the problems that happened during George W. Bush's presidency.

The big question is: how would Al Gore have handled 9/11? Could he have prevented it? I do not know. If he had been president, and it happened, how would he have responded? Again I don't know.

I will say this: 9/11 politically required the Taliban government to hand over Osama bin Laden, or it politically required the destruction of the Taliban government. If one year after 9/11 bin Laden was a protected guest of the Taliban government, and if he occasionally was interviewed on television gloating about 9/11 and promising additional attacks, whoever was president of the United States would not have been able to govern.

If Al Gore had been president, and if his response had been insufficiently forceful, the Democratic Party would be in worse shape than it is. Sending a few cruise missiles over to attack suspected Al Qaeda sites would not have been enough. America wanted revenge.

[NoOneFamous]

Bush the Lesser should have stood up, apologized to the kiddies and said something very important had come up and walked, not run, walked out of the room. He was a coward who hid in the bunker, if he had any balls and brains he wouldn't have listened to his staff and returned to DC.

And please tell me about Bill Clinton

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/cli...ing-bin-laden/

[ladygodiva123]

Originally Posted by nighttouch

Obviously this was started by a liberal Democrat and there is nothing wrong with that as long as they remember that they are only going to believe that Democrats are great presidents. Because Reagan was a whole lot better than Clinton, who by the way, like Obama had control of both houses and couldn't get his healthplan passed. Obama pushed through a flawed plan with his majority in both houses even though now some of his own team said that they incorrectly reported the wrong financial projections. It creates a bigger government and thus the need for increased taxes.As Reagan said the worst thing that you can hear is We are the government and we are here to help you.

Because of the abuse of the filibuster and other delaying tactics of the Republican senators, a bill essentially needs a super majority, 60 votes, to pass. For example, the jobs bill Obama supported was defeated last fall even though the vote was 50 to 49 in favor. A simple majority isn't enough with GOP senators who do anything and everything to defeat ANYTHING that Obama supports.

[sockaraus]

Originally Posted by nighttouch

Reagen helped bring down the wall and restored faith in America that Carter blew.His leadership restored America.Clinton dumbed down overseas intelligence assets , gave the Chinese access to nuclear secrets at Los Alamos and bumbled on the first WTC bombing. The economy grew under GW, even though we had to respond to 911 and warned everyone that it was not going to be a quick war. Ever notice that once we went over there, there were no more terrorist attacks similar to 911 even though Bin Laden said that was the first of many against the great Satan?

Are you serious? There doesn't have to be more terrorist attacks. The job has been done. Americans have been living in terror ever since. Lashing out at the slightest provocation. Trampling over the freedoms and rights of any other country that it deems a threat
. Like a typical bully it lashes out because it's scared.

[tommyturtle]

Originally Posted by ladygodiva123

Because of the abuse of the filibuster and other delaying tactics of the Republican senators, a bill essentially needs a super majority, 60 votes, to pass. For example, the jobs bill Obama supported was defeated last fall even though the vote was 50 to 49 in favor. A simple majority isn't enough with GOP senators who do anything and everything to defeat ANYTHING that Obama supports.

The same thing happens when a Republican is in the White House. The Senate can change its own rules if they want but they choose not to. It's more fun to bitch about how the other side is blocking "everything."

[shootersa]

Originally Posted by NoOneFamous

Bush the Lesser should have stood up, apologized to the kiddies and said something very important had come up and walked, not run, walked out of the room. He was a coward who hid in the bunker, if he had any balls and brains he wouldn't have listened to his staff and returned to DC.

And please tell me about Bill Clinton

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/cli...ing-bin-laden/

Find out about Clinton yourself.

You still don't get the point; what Bush did in the first 8 minutes after learning of the attacks is irrelevant and whatever he did he would have been criticized for. And hiding in a bunker in Louisiana? People who spout that crap haven't thought it through; Bush was safest aboard Air Force One, least safe (until the true nature of the attacks and their extent was known) in Washington.

The unwillingness (or inability) to think through what you hear and evaluate it for accuracy is a strong indicator of a closed mind; you hear what you want to hear, the rest is lies.

The fact that Bush was in Louisiana, long enough to address the nation, does not translate objectively to "Runs and hides in a bunker in Louisiana"

But then you know that.

[Geraldo]

for the enemies of the united states of america, george w. bush was a blessing in disguise. i'm not sure whether he was the worst president, but he was bad. he degraded america surely more than any president over the last fifty years before him and that can only be good news for them.

thank george w. bush for his leadership. the infastructure of that country is crumbling while countries like iraq and afghanistan are being attempted to be rebuilt, that country is bankrupt... everyone is richer than the united states government, thousands of americans have died... i mean, just look at what i'm saying here.

[SaraTG]

Originally Posted by NoOneFamous

Every President from Truman on helped bring down the USSR, Ronnie Raygun just happened to be there when it fell..

You don't know what you're talking about, do you?

[Distant Lover]

By every criteria I can think of the United States was better off after eight years of Bill Clinton, and worse off after eight years of George the Lesser.

As far as Iraq and Afghanistan are concerned, the United States is better off after 3 and a half years of Barack Obama. The wars are winding down, and we got Osama bin Laden. As far as the economy is concerned, the country is worse off.

[shootersa]

All Clinton did that I can recall is teach a generation that oral sex isn't sex.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

By every criteria I can think of the United States was better off after eight years of Bill Clinton, and worse off after eight years of George the Lesser.

As far as Iraq and Afghanistan are concerned, the United States is better off after 3 and a half years of Barack Obama. The wars are winding down, and we got Osama bin Laden. As far as the economy is concerned, the country is worse off.

Clinton left an ascendent Al Qaeda for W to handle, didn't he? But we don't see that on your graphs.

The wars are winding down? More like forced exits, aren't they? While we "wind down," the Middle East powderkeg heats up in inverse proportion, right? And what are the criteria for withdrawal? Does anyone know? We certainly are not leaving peace and a persistent Arab Spring in our wake. Are we?

Seems to me there is one criterion for withdrawal, and one criterion only: the box that Obama must check off, adjacent to his biggest campaign promise.

Reminds me of one of W's more memorable miscues (yeah, I get to criticize him, too):

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

Well, like I've said a zillion times on this board, let him have a second term. If the Middle East is going to explode, and if the economy is going to tank, and if the Euro is going to collapse, I want those things to happen on Obama's watch.

Of course Aces 'n Eights will remind me that W and Cheney will still be at fault, five years from now. Sadly true: grownups must shoulder responsibility for the errant comportment and misdemeanors of their children. Obama is a child. A selfish self-absorbed narcissistic little brat.

[Old Tool]

Comparing Obama to W is a question not worth considering . . . yet. Obama has only been in office for 3+ years and the net effect of his activity (or lack thereof) has yet to be assessed with any rigor. Unless you're a die-hard partisan, then of course his 3-1/2 years are either: a shining example of courage in a modern world, or an example of the ultimate liberal politico falling on his face and dragging the country down with him (both of which are wildly ridiculous critiques).

W performed worse than Ronald Reagan, certainly. I would likely put W down there on the bottom rungs with other doofuses like Harding, Grant, Pierce, Johnson, and Hoover. I think a stout argument can be made that W is right behind Grant as the worst two-term president we've ever had.

[richief]

Bush was an ill advised buffoon, he led you and us into two military campaigns that should never of happened, leaving the mess to the next POTUS to clean up. Obama arrived with a Nobel prize and then tried to earn it by leaving Iraq in a worse state than when Saddam was in charge, and now he has more or less declared that Afghan is peaceful enough to leave to their own means, blindly ignoring the fact that the different factions are lined up, trained by NATO, armed by NATO and ready in all respects to force the locals to do what they want. As they build up their power bases they will eventually descend into civil war, with factions making and breaking alliances 'til there is only one left with the strength to run the country, it may be religious zealots or just plain criminals but both will stop growing grain and plant the poppy to make money to fight. In short the locals will go back ten years, the US will ignore the pleas of the legitimate government in exile and the locals will be fucked coming and going.


Edit.

Who is worse, they are both the same, just coming from a different direction.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by Old Tool

Comparing Obama to W is a question not worth considering . . . yet. Obama has only been in office for 3+ years and the net effect of his activity (or lack thereof) has yet to be assessed with any rigor. Unless you're a die-hard partisan, then of course his 3-1/2 years are either: a shining example of courage in a modern world, or an example of the ultimate liberal politico falling on his face and dragging the country down with him (both of which are wildly ridiculous critiques).

W performed worse than Ronald Reagan, certainly. I would likely put W down there on the bottom rungs with other doofuses like Harding, Grant, Pierce, Johnson, and Hoover. I think a stout argument can be made that W is right behind Grant as the worst two-term president we've ever had.

I voted for Barack Obama. I will vote for him again. I do not see him as "a shining example of courage in a modern world." I think he is incompetent. Nevertheless, he shares my concerns and goals. I would rather have an incompetent president than a competent president who wants to repeal the New Deal.

Unfortunately, good intentions are not good enough. I wish I could vote for a president I admire than against a politician who would be even worse.