I'm Happy Obama is Politically Failing- Are You?

[Ibentoken]

YouThater dupes are highly misinformed lol...[/QUOTE

You hater dupes are highly misinformed lol...

Awww, that's so cute. The poor creature is trying to communicate.

 

[Billy000]

You hater dupes are highly misinformed lol...

Not only are they misinformed but their critical thinking skills are shockingly bad.

 

[Mojo2]

And the gift that keeps giving from Politico- WTF? Did they start chewing on Hilary's snatch already or what?

-Geaux
--------------------------------------------

Poll: Majority say President Obama a failure

A majority of voters believe Barack Obama’s presidency has been a failure, a new poll says.

According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll released Tuesday, 52 percent of Americans say Obama’s presidency has been a failure, compared with 42 percent who believe it has been a success. Thirty-nine percent believe strongly that his presidency is a failure, just 3 points below his total success score.

Read more: Poll Majority say President Obama a failure - Jonathan Topaz - POLITICO.com

Of course!

"The lofty expectations and grand pronouncements of Obama–unmatched by any presidential candidate in my lifetime–have crashed against reality time and time again.


It’s not simply that Mr. Obama has fallen short of what he promised; it’s that he has been, in so many respects, a failure.

Choose your metrics. Better yet, choose Mr. Obama’s metrics:

Job creation. FAILURE.*

Economic growth. FAILURE.

Improving our health-care system. FAILURE.

Reducing the debt. FAILURE.

Reducing poverty. FAILURE.

Reducing income inequality. FAILURE.

Slowing the rise of the oceans. FAILURE.

Healing the planet. FAILURE.

Repairing the world. FAILURE.

The Russian “reset.” FAILURE.

Peace in the Middle East. FAILURE.

Red lines in Syria. FAILURE.

Renewed focus on Afghanistan. FAILURE.

A new beginning with the Arab world. FAILURE.

Better relations with our allies. FAILURE.

Depolarizing our politics. FAILURE.

Putting an end to the type of politics that “breeds division and conflict and cynicism.” FAILURE.

Working with the other party. FAILURE.

Transparency. FAILURE.

No lobbyists working in his administration. FAILURE.

His commitment to seek public financing in the general election. FAILURE.

The list goes on and on.

By now, nearly five and a half years into the Obama presidency, objective people can draw reasonable conclusions, among which are these: Barack Obama was among the least prepared men to ever serve as presidency. It shows. He has been overmatched by events right from the start. He is an excellent campaigner but unusually inept when it comes to governing.

By temperament and experience, based on skill set and ability, Mr. Obama is much better equipped to be a community organizer than to be president of the United States.

For the sake of our nation and much of the world, I wish he had stayed on Chicago’s South Side."

Obama s Staggering Record of Failure Commentary Magazine

And to think we could have hired Mitt (Mr. Fixit) Romney for the same salary!

* I added the word, "FAILURE" after each item on the list.

 

[Geaux4it]

And to add

 

[Mojo2]

I'm Happy Obama is Politically Failing- Are You?

Where were you when the Libs started this crap during the height of the Iraq war fighting?

Your bullshit protests encouraged Haji in Iraq to keep on fighting our troops.

Fuck you.

Bush should have spent less time praying about Iraq, and more time educating himself on Iraq.

What should he have learned that you think he didn't know?

 

[francoHFW]

That list- either not true- or something blocked by greedy idiot bought off Pubs...

Those who argued with Booosh were unpatriotic, now those who support Obama are un-American....amazing. At any rate Obama is no failure like Booosh, and the GOP is disapproved by 78%. Hater dupes!

 

[Mojo2]

And to add

And we all know what a big fuckin liar he is, so go dance with Ellen and leave us alone.

 

[Mojo2]

That list- either not true- or something blocked by greedy idiot bought off Pubs...

Those who argued with Booosh were unpatriotic, now those who support Obama are un-American....amazing. At any rate Obama is no failure like Booosh, and the GOP is disapproved by 78%. Hater dupes!

It's not funny when you say, "hater dupes". Its when someone MOCKS you by saying it to you in response to some of your bullshit that is funny.

 

[Lakhota]

NaziCons are so full of hate. I guess they just miss the good old days.

 

[Rikurzhen]

NaziCons are so full of hate. I guess they just miss the good old days.

NaziCon, is that like bone-dry water or something?

 

[boedicca]

You hater dupes are highly misinformed lol...

Not only are they misinformed but their critical thinking skills are shockingly bad.

You're projecting again, bub. I doubt that the CDC can help you with that.

 

[francoHFW]

Job creation. FAILURE.
10 million jobs.

Economic growth. FAILURE.
4 years straight despite mindless Pub obstruction.
Improving our health-care system. FAILURE.
Policy costs down 0.8% 26% more covered.

Too bad hater dupes don't get any real news...EBOLA!!!! lol

 

[Ibentoken]

NaziCons are so full of hate. I guess they just miss the good old days.

NaziCon, is that like bone-dry water or something?

Job creation. FAILURE.
10 million jobs.

Economic growth. FAILURE.
4 years straight despite mindless Pub obstruction.
Improving our health-care system. FAILURE.
Policy costs down 0.8% 26% more covered.

Too bad hater dupes don't get any real news...EBOLA!!!! lol

You'd let Obama cum in your mouth, huh.

 

[blackhawk]

I wouldn't say I was happy there are a lot of people hurting as a result of these policies I'm also not surprised by the results of them either.

 

[Carla_Danger]

I'm Happy Obama is Politically Failing- Are You?

Where were you when the Libs started this crap during the height of the Iraq war fighting?

Your bullshit protests encouraged Haji in Iraq to keep on fighting our troops.

Fuck you.

Bush should have spent less time praying about Iraq, and more time educating himself on Iraq.

What should he have learned that you think he didn't know?

Ummmm, not to go there.

 

[francoHFW]

NaziCons are so full of hate. I guess they just miss the good old days.

NaziCon, is that like bone-dry water or something?

Job creation. FAILURE.
10 million jobs.

Economic growth. FAILURE.
4 years straight despite mindless Pub obstruction.
Improving our health-care system. FAILURE.
Policy costs down 0.8% 26% more covered.

Too bad hater dupes don't get any real news...EBOLA!!!! lol

You'd let Obama cum in your mouth, huh.

Vulgar AND stupid. Perfect hater dupe.

 

[Vigilante]

When you just can't help yourself FAILING...GO BIG!!!!

 

[frigidweirdo]

However it seems that it was more a commercial decision than one based on political reasons, and certainly at the time, Islam wasn’t the common enemy, it wasn’t the big evil.

Can you not spot post-hoc rationalizations?


The US Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania took place in 1998. The Khobar Towers bombing took place in 1996. Both were serious terrorist events and both took place before work began on the script.


Clancy's novel was based on a PLAUSIBLE terrorist source. There are NO EUROTRASH billionaire, NeoNazi terrorist organizations. That's a Hollywood invention more implausible than Red Dawn's North Korean military air dropping paratroopers into Colorado small towns in order to take over the United States.

Again, I’m not saying everything started from zero on 9/11. My point isn’t that Muslims weren’t bombing. The fact is the tension between the US and Islam existed. Why? Because the US has, firstly supported Israel, also supported them in a manner which is often criticized. We need not discuss why this has happened, just that it has been so.


In 1946 the CIA had a part to play in a coup in Syria.

In 1953 Mohammed Mosaddeq of Iran was overthrown with the help of the US and UK. Previously he had not been by Truman because he was a buffer against the Soviets. Eisenhower decided otherwise.

In 1957 you have the Eisenhower Doctrine. This was to prevent the Soviets gaining influence with Middle East states with oil, essentially. Different from now? A bit, its main concern was the spread of Communism, and oil played a secondary role, though the Middle East was more important than other areas. Though oil at this time was not as important as now.

In 1958 you have the Lebanon Crisis. The US sent in troops for 3 months.

You have the 1979 revolution in Iran.

“Heikal,Iran: The Untold Story (1982), p. 23. "It was abundantly clear to me that the students were obsessed with the idea that the Americans might be preparing to mount another counter-coup. Memories of 1953 were uppermost in their minds. They all knew about Kermit Roosevelt's bookCountercoup, and most of them had read extracts from it. Although, largely owing to intervention by the British, who were anxious that the part they and the oil company had played in organizing the coup should not become known, this book had been withdrawn before publication, a few copies of it had got out and been duplicated."”

You have the US support for Saddam in the Iran/Iraq war.

In 1988 the US attacked Iran.


And there’s more. The US was interfering in the region quite a lot. It’s hardly surprising there were counterattacks against the US during this period.


However, the point I am making is one of an escalation from 9/11 onwards with Bush coming out and using the same old words to sell his idea of this common enemy.

There’s not necessarily much difference between what the far right was doing, but why all the change? Part of the change was because of a changing situation, more Muslims in these countries and an increase in problems. However there was a big change in policy among many far right groups in Europe, a change that was in part due to what Bush was saying.

You're still trying to cram facts into your narrative rather than letting facts lead to your a parsimonious conclusion. Europeans, of all stripes, hated Bush for both stylistic and prejudiced reasons. Neonazis didn't look up to Bush. Europeans thought he was a cowboy (You're with us or again't us) and they also tend to hate every President simply because he's American.


Lastly, Bush wasn't saying Islam is the enemy, it's guys like me who've lived in the region, know Islam and WHO REJECT multiculturalism, who argue that Islam is the enemy. Bush was saying the very opposite, that Islam is a religion of peace and the rest of the balderdash. Bush promised to end Muslim profiling in airports, one of only a few intelligent decisions made by President Clinton.

I’m not saying far right groups were pro-Bush. I’m saying they jumped on his coattails and made use of what he had spent most of his time in office propagating. Ie, being anti-Islam.

You’re wrong about Bush.


Firstly, anything Bush said about Islam, I’d put down to what people told him to say. I don’t trust politicians much, they’ll say what they need to say to get what they want. Bush on the campaign trail needed to sound presidential. He did NOT need to say the truth. You’ve already shown where he stated his “opinion” which when he came to office was reversed.


Also, like I’ve said before, he was trying it on with the Chinese before 9/11. 9/11 happened and he changed tact and went for Islam. His “War on Terror” and “al-Qaeda” almost every speech he made contained this. He could have spoken about taking a dump and he’d probably have got these two words in there.


You also have to remember that Bush was walking a tightrope. He had the support of the Saudis and their oil, for a start. Whatever he said had to sound good to the Saudis, but also sound good to the people at home. It’s not unusual in the modern era to be saying things on a dual plain. Research of far right groups in Europe shows this is a massive thing they do. I’ve quote Nick Griffin of the BNP before, he basically said “use democracy because no one can attack you for this”, he also said “use this word because it sounds good even though we mean something else”.

Attacking al-Qaeda for the Saudis sounded like attacked terrorists on the extreme of Islam which the Saudi royalty could cope with. However to the average unsuspecting American without a clue of where the Middle East was or who was who in the region, saying “al-Qaeda” was basically saying “Islam”.

You mean this guy?

Yep, why you brought in Che into this I don’t know.

The problem with your argument is that you’d have to show that Islam is completely radical. There are 1 billion Muslims on the planet and most of these people live in peace and don’t do anything.

There were plenty of Nazis who didn't do anything either. Lots of people can believe in an ideology, only a small percentage have to be active in implementing it. Look at how damn effective Liberals have been in destroying America and not every rank and file liberal has been complicit due to actual actions taken.

There were plenty in Germany who weren’t Nazis at all. Hitler never gained more than 33% of the vote in a free and fair election, and that was in troubled times when people will vote more extreme when they don’t believe the ideology at hand.

Most people just want to get on with their lives and politics gets in their face.

You say Islam has wars everywhere there are borders. Does Christianity not have lots of wars where there are borders?

No, it doesn't. Islam is an ideology built on a foundation of war. Do you understand? The core of Islam is to use violence to bring Islam to new territories. What you see from Christianity is foolhardy physicians and nurses going to Ebola-stricken lands to do "God's work."


Religion ≠ Religion ≠ Religion ≠ Religion.


Islam is a totally different beast than Christianity.

I understand what Islam is, and how it came about. However Religion is a tool. Christianity came about during a struggle against the Romans. Does it matter.


Here’s an analogy. You have traffic lights to tell you when you can cross the road. If you walk across the road on the green man it’s because it’s telling you that you are safe.

In reality will you not get run over on the green man? Well it depends where you are. Southern France you’ll get hit if you don’t look. Other places, like Norway, Sweden, Germany etc you’re hardly ever going to have a problem.


The point being, Islam started as something, but this is almost meaningless. It’s how it works in the present day that matters. It matters how the people who interpret it do this. It matters how it’s used.


Shall we point to the difference? Much of Africa, all of the Americas are Christian. Most of Africa became Christian due to imperialism, which, quite frankly, wasn’t nice. All of the Americas became Christian after being invaded and suffering ethnic cleansing and genocide. Plus you have countries like the Philippines which also became Christian because of imperialism.


Islam grew also because of war and killing and genocide.


I don’t see a difference.


Yet I get told by Christians that Islam is bad because……


It doesn’t make sense to me.


I get told Islam is bad because they’re always at war. The US is always at war. In my life I’ve seen war after war after war after war with the US and someone else. If it isn’t called war it’s called something else, interference, coup d’etat, assassination, whatever.

Here I failed to see anything about Islam that suggests a major problem other than typical problems between neighbor that has been happening in Europe since forever.

Countries which have suffered from Islamic Terror Attacks since Sept. 2001

Do you want my maps?

Compare this to the number of Christian countries Muslims have invaded since 9/11, which would be zero.

Here’s the British Empire. See how many Muslim countries there are?

French colonial empire.


In fact I think Saudi Arabia was the ONLY Muslim country not to suffer from this. Turkey wasn’t taken over, but still took part in WW1 for example with Gallipoli etc.

Where US troops are in the world.

US interventions

 

[Geaux4it]

And this mornings Obama failure report. Soon, he will be on the equivalent of academic probation

-Geaux
=========================

Anne-Marie Slaughter on Obama's failure to recognize ISIS extremism

“This White House refused to recognize both the spreading and fueling of extremism,” she told me. “It was evident that unless we intervened it was just going to spread. But the White House did not want to get involved in another Middle East war so we effectively limited our assistance to humanitarian aid on the side.”

Anne-Marie Slaughter on Obama s failure to recognize ISIS extremism - Fortune

 

[frigidweirdo]

The question is this. If the US left the Middle East alone, would it become a Caliphate? I don’t believe so. I believe that if Muslims in the region had stability, they’d be different.


You can look at the examples of Qatar, UAE, to some extent Saudi Arabia, of countries that, while they still keep parts of Islam that are in the past, their stability (and money) is keeping extremism away from these places.

BOTH ARE US ALLIES. Both are huge funders of ISIS. The New York Times.


Standing at the front of a conference hall in Doha, the visiting sheikh told his audience of wealthy Qataris that to help the battered residents of Syria, they should not bother with donations to humanitarian programs or the Western-backed Free Syrian Army.


“Give your money to the ones who will spend it on jihad, not aid,” implored the sheikh, Hajaj al-Ajmi, recently identified by the United States government as a fund-raiser for Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate.


Qatar is a tiny, petroleum-rich Persian Gulf monarchy where the United States has its largest military base in the Middle East. But for years it has tacitly consented to open fund-raising by Sheikh Ajmi and others like him. After his pitch, which he recorded in 2012 and which still circulates on the Internet, a sportscaster from the government-owned network, Al Jazeera, lauded him. “Sheikh Ajmi knows best” about helping Syrians, the sportscaster, Mohamed Sadoun El-Kawary, declared from the same stage.


Sheikh Ajmi’s career as fund-raiser is one example of how Qatar has for many years helped support a spectrum of Islamist groups around the region by providing safe haven, diplomatic mediation, financial aid and, in certain instances, weapons.


Sheikh Ajmi and at least a half-dozen others identified by the United States as private fund-raisers for Al Qaeda’s Syrian franchise operate freely in Doha, often speaking at state-owned mosques and even occasionally appearing on Al Jazeera. The state itself has provided at least some form of assistance — whether sanctuary, media, money or weapons — to the Taliban of Afghanistan, Hamas of Gaza, rebels from Syria, militias in Libya and allies of the Muslim Brotherhood across the region.


The Independent:


How far is Saudi Arabia complicit in the Isis takeover of much of northern Iraq, and is it stoking an escalating Sunni-Shia conflict across the Islamic world? Some time before 9/11, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, once the powerful Saudi ambassador in Washington and head of Saudi intelligence until a few months ago, had a revealing and ominous conversation with the head of the British Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove. Prince Bandar told him: "The time is not far off in the Middle East, Richard, when it will be literally 'God help the Shia'. More than a billion Sunnis have simply had enough of them."


The fatal moment predicted by Prince Bandar may now have come for many Shia, with Saudi Arabia playing an important role in bringing it about by supporting the anti-Shia jihad in Iraq and Syria. Since the capture of Mosul by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) on 10 June, Shia women and children have been killed in villages south of Kirkuk, and Shia air force cadets machine-gunned and buried in mass graves near Tikrit.


In Mosul, Shia shrines and mosques have been blown up, and in the nearby Shia Turkoman city of Tal Afar 4,000 houses have been taken over by Isis fighters as "spoils of war". Simply to be identified as Shia or a related sect, such as the Alawites, in Sunni rebel-held parts of Iraq and Syria today, has become as dangerous as being a Jew was in Nazi-controlled parts of Europe in 1940.


There is no doubt about the accuracy of the quote by Prince Bandar, secretary-general of the Saudi National Security Council from 2005 and head of General Intelligence between 2012 and 2014, the crucial two years when al-Qa'ida-type jihadis took over the Sunni-armed opposition in Iraq and Syria. Speaking at the Royal United Services Institute last week, Dearlove, who headed MI6 from 1999 to 2004, emphasised the significance of Prince Bandar's words, saying that they constituted "a chilling comment that I remember very well indeed".


He does not doubt that substantial and sustained funding from private donors in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to which the authorities may have turned a blind eye, has played a central role in the Isis surge into Sunni areas of Iraq. He said: "Such things simply do not happen spontaneously." This sounds realistic since the tribal and communal leadership in Sunni majority provinces is much beholden to Saudi and Gulf paymasters, and would be unlikely to cooperate with Isis without their consent.

Which leads us back to US interests. The US does EVERYTHING in its own interests. Do you not think that Muslims would not react to this? That there are no consequences to any of this?


Do you not think that a lot of people getting pissed at this are actually now being more easily radicalized?

They're not being radicalized by American actions, they're being radicalized by internal forces. The failure of dictatorships, the failure of non-Islamic governance, etc leads people to seek a new path. Many of them believe that a return to the 7th Century model will produce better results than the 21st Century cultures intruding into their sphere.


They're just as angry at Europe as they are at America. They're thwarted in their ambitions. They want to impose, through the UN, a global ban on blasphemy but the West vetoes that, so they must endure people criticizing Islam and they can't punish people in the West for doing so.

I don’t get your point. I’m not talking about being able to have freedom and liberty with only one race in a country. What are you getting at?

When you compare a heterogeneous society like the US to homogenous societies like Norway and Denmark and then marvel at their freedom and liberty, you need to recognize that the homogeneous structure of their societies is PRECISELY what allows the greater flowering of freedom and liberty. America has to curtail freedom and liberty in order to keep a heterogeneous society functioning.

It just disappeared? Poof, in the air? No, the Hagia Sofia is still there. It’s a museum now, I was in the city when Obama went in a stroked a cat in the Hagia Sofia. Yes, it’s in a Muslim country, it’s called Istanbul, but it’s still Constantinople, you can’t change history.

The Hagia Sofia is no longer a Christian Church. Istanbul is no longer Christian Constantinople. We were talking about Islamic expansion. Constantinople is simply one of many exhibits which shows how Islam expands.

Yes, both are allies and there is funding going there that fights the US. What has the US ever done about such things? Not much. The interests of oil come above anything else. US soldier’s lives are WORTH the reduction in oil price, apparently.

However I don’t think these places would form a Caliphate, their interests in selling oil and getting rich outweigh this. How much of this is just the Saudis and Qataris just wanted to see the US’s influence over their countries disappear, and they feel ISIS is the way to do this?
The US is pretty good at supporting the wrong guys for what they feel are the right reasons, why wouldn’t others?


You say it’s internal forces. But those you list are often part of US policy. Failure of dictators. Well, how many dictators have failed because of the US? Assad, Mubarak, Gaddafi, Hussain have all gone in the last 11 years, and all because of US action.

Why do you think they believe that going back will make thing better? It’s because the US comes along saying there should be democracy, liberty and freedom. In Iraq this meant perhaps 1 million people being killed. In Egypt this meant people being killed, and when they did elected someone the US didn’t like those who were elected and it caused more problems. The whole region is an absolute mess because of the US, and the US supposedly represents democracy freedom and liberty. How would you feel if those three words represented death, destruction and instability? You’d want to go back to a time when stability existed, wouldn’t you?

The US govt doesn’t seem to understand (read “give a shit”) about this.


Have you ever been to Norway? I have, and there are a lot of foreigners living there. There’s about 600,000 foreigners in Norway (ethnically) out of 5 million people.

Okay, the US is much more, clearly about 99% are foreign ethnically. But I don’t see that as being an issue. England, for example, is ethnically diverse, even before you add the recent immigrants. You had the Normans (who are the posh people), the Celts, the Angles, the Saxons all mixing together.


The Hagia Sofia isn’t even a Mosque, it’s a museum.