Barack Obama: Worst. President. Ever.

[Stephanie]

If Conservatives thought Obama was a great President it would mean:

1. We cut taxes on billionaires
2. We invaded Egypt, Libya and Syria
3. 10 million Americans would be without insurance
4. Gays would be back in the closet
5. GM and Chrysler would be bankrupt
6. The environment would be sold off to the capitalists

I think it is great that conservatives think Obama is the worst President ever

Remember all that time when the RW'ers used to say that Sarah Palin must be doing something right,

based on how upset she made the Democrats?

Well, let's be fair and use that line of thinking to describe Obama. Fair enough?

The only effect Sarah had on the Democrats was that she inspired them to vote. What a goddamned idiot:

The Party of the barley 3 digit IQ President and his even dumber VP talking about idiots

Hysterical

YEAH hysterical you lefties hating on a woman while trying to Derail off who the thread is actually about. . you're hysterical people on the left and just sad little human beings

 

[Eaglewings]

I knew we were in trouble from that Crowning, I mean of his swearing in ceremony that was the ugliest of any President I have lived under. You could tell from that how much he and the wife hated us and everything about us as a country.
this sums him up to a tee and my gawd we have another year to go

snip:
By Robert Tracinski
November 19, 2015




I still remember a lot of people telling me in 2006 that George W. Bush was the “worst president ever.”

They had no idea what they were talking about. This is what the “worst president ever” looks like. In his response to the attacks in Paris, Barack Obama has shown us a leader who is not just inadequate to his core responsibilities, but contemptuous of them.

It started Friday night with his first statement about the attacks. He was perfunctory, devoid of content, and utterly listless. His delivery was flat and without affect — expressing neither outrage nor sorrow — giving the impression that he had no desire to be in front of the cameras or to make any comment at all.

A VIDEO AT THE SITE

I don’t demand much out of an early press conference like this. The president still knows too few facts about the case and has not had time to formulate a detailed response. But he should at least look as if he cares. If France is “our oldest ally” and “represents the timeless values of human progress,” shouldn’t Obama be very engaged with what happens there?

By contrast, here was his same-day reaction to a mass shooting in Oregon six weeks earlier.

A VIDEO AT THE SITE

See especially the part about four minutes in. It’s clear that the prospect of imposing gun control domestically gets Obama riled up. Fighting the enemies of America overseas does not. But the first of these goals is actually prohibited to him by the Constitution — while the second is mandated for him. I don’t know if we’ve ever seen a president whose personal priorities are so out of sync with the actual demands of his office.

The administration’s reaction has only gotten worse as it has had more days to respond. On Tuesday, Secretary of State John Kerry let out the howler that the terrorist attack in France earlier this year — wiping out the headquarters of a satirical magazine that had offended radical Muslims — was kind of understandable.

There’s something different about what happened from Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that. There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of—not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, okay, they’re really angry because of this and that. This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate. It wasn’t to aggrieve one particular sense of wrong. It was to terrorize people.

To be sure, this sentiment didn’t come from Obama himself. But he hired Kerry, who has a record of making horribly insensitive statements. He is the same guy who thought a James Taylor song was an appropriate response to the Charlie Hebdo massacre — and Obama apparently agreed that this would make up for skipping out on an international unity rally in support of France. So maybe we know now why the administration couldn’t really get mobilized to show support for Charlie Hebdo: deep down, they thought the magazine had it coming.

Obama’s administration can’t even get the easy, symbolic stuff right. But the real problem is the substance of his response.


That brings us to Obama’s petty, peevish press conference on Monday. This is the president who infamously dismissed the Islamic State as the junior varsity squad and described it as “contained” just hours before the attacks in Paris. So naturally, he faced a flurry of questions challenging him on that. At which point, as Politico put it, “he appeared to lose patience with repeated questions about whether he underestimated the threat of the terror network.”

Even Democrats are concerned that “at times he was patronizing, at other times he seemed annoyed and almost dismissive.” Nothing was more dismissive than this comment:

If folks want to pop off and have opinions about what they think they would do, present a specific plan. If they think that somehow their advisors are better than the Chairman of my Joint Chiefs of Staff and the folks who are actually on the ground, I want to meet them. And we can have that debate. But what I’m not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning, or whatever other slogans they come up with that has no relationship to what is actually going to work to protect the American people, and to protect people in the region who are getting killed, and to protect our allies and people like France. I’m too busy for that.

This was supposed to show that he doesn’t give a damn what his critics think, but it just shows that he doesn’t give a damn. This is the point inadvertently made by a blogger who praised him and put the issue in no uncertain terms, though I have bowdlerized it a bit to make it publishable on a family website.

We’ve kinda suspected it before, but President Obama genuinely gives no [damns] at this point. He is [damn] devoid. [Damn] deficient. [Damn] deprived. [Damn] destitute. His cupboard of [damns] is barren; his tank of [damns] has been depleted. You know how, on cloudy nights, you might look up into the vast and endless sky and not find any stars? The same thing would happen if you looked at Obama and searched for [damns]. And this, this total absence of [damns], is where pop off came from.”

This is supposed to make Obama “cool,” I guess, because it shows that he is defying the “haters” — those “haters” being his critics back home, not the guys shooting people on the streets of Paris. But it actually shows contempt for pretty much everybody.

It’s contemptuous of some of his political allies, like Dianne Feinstein, who are concerned that the Islamic State is “not contained.” It’s contemptuous of the reporters who are asking him good, tough questions. And it’s contemptuous of the American people, who are suddenly concerned that attacks like the one in Paris are going to start happening in our own cities and who want some kind of reassurance that the president of the United States is on the job. They don’t want to be told that they are just “popping off,” or that the president isn’t taking their concerns seriously.

all of it here and we should all be hanging our heads in shame
Barack Obama: Worst. President. Ever.

Stephanie, you are on Government assistance right? What do you think would have happened to your livelihood if Romney would have gotten in?

 

[imawhosure]

If Conservatives thought Obama was a great President it would mean:

1. We cut taxes on billionaires
2. We invaded Egypt, Libya and Syria
3. 10 million Americans would be without insurance
4. Gays would be back in the closet
5. GM and Chrysler would be bankrupt
6. The environment would be sold off to the capitalists

I think it is great that conservatives think Obama is the worst President ever

Remember all that time when the RW'ers used to say that Sarah Palin must be doing something right,

based on how upset she made the Democrats?

Well, let's be fair and use that line of thinking to describe Obama. Fair enough?

The only effect Sarah had on the Democrats was that she inspired them to vote. What a goddamned idiot:

The Party of the barley 3 digit IQ President and his even dumber VP talking about idiots

Hysterical

YEAH hysterical you lefties hating on a woman while trying to Derail off who the thread is actually about. . you're hysterical people on the left and just sad little human beings

Steph, I don't know if Obysmal is the worst President in history, because to calculate that, we would have to put weight to issues, then measure. Of course, the left would argue with the weight given to each issue, if their messiah (praise be his name) ended up being classified as worst.

But, next time you or somebody else starts a thread like this, word the topic a little different, and there is no debate-) What should the topic change be? Why of course, "Is Obama the most anti-American, anti constitutional President ever!"

For the lefties to deflect this one from Obysmal, they then have to come up with examples of Presidents being anti-American, or anti constitutional. Obama wins hands down, unless of course you want to cite FDR throwing Japanese Americans into concentration camps, and the left would never throw the Socialistic patriarch under the bus, so that leaves Obysmal standing alone-)

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. The Rise of ISIS. President Obama failed to anticipate the rise of ISIS, which he ridiculed as a “jayvee team” as recently as last year, and he has since failed to do anything effective to impede it. ISIS had established territory in large parts of Syria and Iraq; it now “controls a volume of resources and territory unmatched in the history of extremist organizations.” Under Mr. Obama’s watch, a jihadist caliphate has been established in the heart of the Middle East — and the president has no strategy to deal with it.

Right. RWnuts would say that about ISIS only because they don't consider the Nazis to have been extremists.

lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

RW'ers consider Obama a terrible president because they are RW'ers.

 

[Faun]

I knew we were in trouble from that Crowning, I mean of his swearing in ceremony that was the ugliest of any President I have lived under. You could tell from that how much he and the wife hated us and everything about us as a country.
this sums him up to a tee and my gawd we have another year to go

snip:
By Robert Tracinski
November 19, 2015




I still remember a lot of people telling me in 2006 that George W. Bush was the “worst president ever.”

They had no idea what they were talking about. This is what the “worst president ever” looks like. In his response to the attacks in Paris, Barack Obama has shown us a leader who is not just inadequate to his core responsibilities, but contemptuous of them.

It started Friday night with his first statement about the attacks. He was perfunctory, devoid of content, and utterly listless. His delivery was flat and without affect — expressing neither outrage nor sorrow — giving the impression that he had no desire to be in front of the cameras or to make any comment at all.

A VIDEO AT THE SITE

I don’t demand much out of an early press conference like this. The president still knows too few facts about the case and has not had time to formulate a detailed response. But he should at least look as if he cares. If France is “our oldest ally” and “represents the timeless values of human progress,” shouldn’t Obama be very engaged with what happens there?

By contrast, here was his same-day reaction to a mass shooting in Oregon six weeks earlier.

A VIDEO AT THE SITE

See especially the part about four minutes in. It’s clear that the prospect of imposing gun control domestically gets Obama riled up. Fighting the enemies of America overseas does not. But the first of these goals is actually prohibited to him by the Constitution — while the second is mandated for him. I don’t know if we’ve ever seen a president whose personal priorities are so out of sync with the actual demands of his office.

The administration’s reaction has only gotten worse as it has had more days to respond. On Tuesday, Secretary of State John Kerry let out the howler that the terrorist attack in France earlier this year — wiping out the headquarters of a satirical magazine that had offended radical Muslims — was kind of understandable.

There’s something different about what happened from Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that. There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of—not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, okay, they’re really angry because of this and that. This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate. It wasn’t to aggrieve one particular sense of wrong. It was to terrorize people.

To be sure, this sentiment didn’t come from Obama himself. But he hired Kerry, who has a record of making horribly insensitive statements. He is the same guy who thought a James Taylor song was an appropriate response to the Charlie Hebdo massacre — and Obama apparently agreed that this would make up for skipping out on an international unity rally in support of France. So maybe we know now why the administration couldn’t really get mobilized to show support for Charlie Hebdo: deep down, they thought the magazine had it coming.

Obama’s administration can’t even get the easy, symbolic stuff right. But the real problem is the substance of his response.


That brings us to Obama’s petty, peevish press conference on Monday. This is the president who infamously dismissed the Islamic State as the junior varsity squad and described it as “contained” just hours before the attacks in Paris. So naturally, he faced a flurry of questions challenging him on that. At which point, as Politico put it, “he appeared to lose patience with repeated questions about whether he underestimated the threat of the terror network.”

Even Democrats are concerned that “at times he was patronizing, at other times he seemed annoyed and almost dismissive.” Nothing was more dismissive than this comment:

If folks want to pop off and have opinions about what they think they would do, present a specific plan. If they think that somehow their advisors are better than the Chairman of my Joint Chiefs of Staff and the folks who are actually on the ground, I want to meet them. And we can have that debate. But what I’m not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning, or whatever other slogans they come up with that has no relationship to what is actually going to work to protect the American people, and to protect people in the region who are getting killed, and to protect our allies and people like France. I’m too busy for that.

This was supposed to show that he doesn’t give a damn what his critics think, but it just shows that he doesn’t give a damn. This is the point inadvertently made by a blogger who praised him and put the issue in no uncertain terms, though I have bowdlerized it a bit to make it publishable on a family website.

We’ve kinda suspected it before, but President Obama genuinely gives no [damns] at this point. He is [damn] devoid. [Damn] deficient. [Damn] deprived. [Damn] destitute. His cupboard of [damns] is barren; his tank of [damns] has been depleted. You know how, on cloudy nights, you might look up into the vast and endless sky and not find any stars? The same thing would happen if you looked at Obama and searched for [damns]. And this, this total absence of [damns], is where pop off came from.”

This is supposed to make Obama “cool,” I guess, because it shows that he is defying the “haters” — those “haters” being his critics back home, not the guys shooting people on the streets of Paris. But it actually shows contempt for pretty much everybody.

It’s contemptuous of some of his political allies, like Dianne Feinstein, who are concerned that the Islamic State is “not contained.” It’s contemptuous of the reporters who are asking him good, tough questions. And it’s contemptuous of the American people, who are suddenly concerned that attacks like the one in Paris are going to start happening in our own cities and who want some kind of reassurance that the president of the United States is on the job. They don’t want to be told that they are just “popping off,” or that the president isn’t taking their concerns seriously.

all of it here and we should all be hanging our heads in shame
Barack Obama: Worst. President. Ever.

Stephanie, you are on Government assistance right? What do you think would have happened to your livelihood if Romney would have gotten in?

Well for one .... this unmitigated disaster would not have occurred ...

Operation american spring | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Faun]

If Conservatives thought Obama was a great President it would mean:

1. We cut taxes on billionaires
2. We invaded Egypt, Libya and Syria
3. 10 million Americans would be without insurance
4. Gays would be back in the closet
5. GM and Chrysler would be bankrupt
6. The environment would be sold off to the capitalists

I think it is great that conservatives think Obama is the worst President ever

Remember all that time when the RW'ers used to say that Sarah Palin must be doing something right,

based on how upset she made the Democrats?

Well, let's be fair and use that line of thinking to describe Obama. Fair enough?

The only effect Sarah had on the Democrats was that she inspired them to vote. What a goddamned idiot:

The Party of the barley 3 digit IQ President and his even dumber VP talking about idiots

Hysterical

YEAH hysterical you lefties hating on a woman while trying to Derail off who the thread is actually about. . you're hysterical people on the left and just sad little human beings

Steph, I don't know if Obysmal is the worst President in history, because to calculate that, we would have to put weight to issues, then measure. Of course, the left would argue with the weight given to each issue, if their messiah (praise be his name) ended up being classified as worst.

But, next time you or somebody else starts a thread like this, word the topic a little different, and there is no debate-) What should the topic change be? Why of course, "Is Obama the most anti-American, anti constitutional President ever!"

For the lefties to deflect this one from Obysmal, they then have to come up with examples of Presidents being anti-American, or anti constitutional. Obama wins hands down, unless of course you want to cite FDR throwing Japanese Americans into concentration camps, and the left would never throw the Socialistic patriarch under the bus, so that leaves Obysmal standing alone-)

Why not let America decide ... ?

Obama's lowest JAR ... 37%

Bush's lowest JAR ... 19%

Presidential Approval - Compare - Roper Center

Bush wins!