worst president in modern times

[Amamba]

A895,

Yesterday, I typed a long reply to you, complete with photos from the surveillance camera showing Michael Brown assaulting the store clerk, and a crowd of looters breaking into a convenience store in Ferguson.

It appears someone complained about my message and it was taken down.

The information is still out there. A simple Google search will show that the store clerk was brutally attacked by two assailants double his size; that there was more than a few looters; that AG Holder ordered FBI to conduct it's own autopsy and found no proof of any wrongdoing on the part of the police officer - not for the lack of trying.

I am done with this conversation. I don't like being censored.

 

[hydrogen3]

The Democrats are doing two things that I see as extremely dangerous.


2. Amnesty for illegal immigrants, which will put millions more people on welfare and they will vote for whomever gives them more handouts. Look at the Democrat voters - for every voter who has sincere political convictions, there's two voting for welfare, or maintaining Union monopoly on employment, or voting their race, regardless of politics. And the more people depend on government handouts, the less say they have in the actions of that government. Building voter base through handouts destroys the very idea of democracy, just as well as bribery.

I don't like the Republicans, either. I have to vote for whatever's the least of two evils at the moment.

This is so true. How do we know this...Page 325 of the Progressives playbook I spoke about earlier.....logic, rationality and facts are overrated.

 

[Amamba]

OK, now let's talk about Obama's effectiveness.

Foreign policy.. it's a joke.

First, he goes on record, time and again, saying Bush's invasion of Iraq was a mistake. I agree with that, actually. He practically apologizes to Europeans for US not listening to them. Then the Europeans do just the same thing Bush did - attack Libya, except they are extremely inefficient, have not invested in their military for years, and run out of ammunition without much to show for it. They ask Obama for help and he gladly steps in to do a Iraq Lite. WTF.

Then, he tries to overthrow Assad. Nevermind that Assad is no threat to us but the rebels that we support are full of Islamic terrorists. After about two years of heavy but fruitless fighting that he sponsored, he realizes that we just helped to create ISIL, does a 180 and asks Assad (that we just tried to overthrow) to be our buddy and help us fight ISIL. WTF.

Even harder to comprehend is the fact that he went to Iranians asking for help. You know, the country that we were in a state of a very cold war with for the last 35 or so years, the country that occupied American embassy and held our citizens hostage for years, the country that sponsors half of the terrorists in the Middle East. The Iranians promptly give him - and the US - the finger, to the delight of the whole world. WTF.

Shall I go on ?

Domestic policy - race baiting, using IRS against political opponents, trying to control the press like he's in China, but overall, other than Obamacare (which I already talked about) he's accomplished little. Yes, the Republicans were stalling every chance they could. Boo-hoo. Show me one president in the last 30 years who didn't have to deal with political opponents stealing his mojo. To have the same party with President in the White House, and majorities in both Senate and Congress is very, very rare, and it's a good thing.

 

[A895]

OK, now let's talk about Obama's effectiveness.

Foreign policy.. it's a joke.

First, he goes on record, time and again, saying Bush's invasion of Iraq was a mistake. I agree with that, actually. He practically apologizes to Europeans for US not listening to them. Then the Europeans do just the same thing Bush did - attack Libya, except they are extremely inefficient, have not invested in their military for years, and run out of ammunition without much to show for it. They ask Obama for help and he gladly steps in to do a Iraq Lite. WTF.

Then, he tries to overthrow Assad. Nevermind that Assad is no threat to us but the rebels that we support are full of Islamic terrorists. After about two years of heavy but fruitless fighting that he sponsored, he realizes that we just helped to create ISIL, does a 180 and asks Assad (that we just tried to overthrow) to be our buddy and help us fight ISIL. WTF.

Even harder to comprehend is the fact that he went to Iranians asking for help. You know, the country that we were in a state of a very cold war with for the last 35 or so years, the country that occupied American embassy and held our citizens hostage for years, the country that sponsors half of the terrorists in the Middle East. The Iranians promptly give him - and the US - the finger, to the delight of the whole world. WTF.

Shall I go on ?

Domestic policy - race baiting, using IRS against political opponents, trying to control the press like he's in China, but overall, other than Obamacare (which I already talked about) he's accomplished little. Yes, the Republicans were stalling every chance they could. Boo-hoo. Show me one president in the last 30 years who didn't have to deal with political opponents stealing his mojo. To have the same party with President in the White House, and majorities in both Senate and Congress is very, very rare, and it's a good thing.

http://whattheheckhasobamadonesofar.com

Posted via the iMore App for Android

 

[hydrogen3]

Partisan hatred runs deep in you young jedi.

Hatred never wins.....

Barry was right... you're proof.

Conservatism is the antidote to tyranny. It's the only one. It's based on thousands of years of human experience. There is nothing narrow about the conservative philosophy. It's a liberating philosophy. It is a magnificent philosophy. It is a philosophy for the ages, for all times.

 

[Amamba]

What the heck has Obama done so far?

Posted via the iMore App for Android

Yes, a lot of unfunded mandates / passing the cost down the road.

Medicare expansion is great.. Where's the money to pay for it ?

Requiring health insurances to report how much money is spent on patient care is great. Where's an effort to stop the massive yet perfectly legal billing fraud - upcoding, drive-by out of network doctor charges, charges for services patient never had any knowledge of or control over, $3000 charges for a 100 ft drive in an ambulance from one door of the hospital to another which patient was forced to take by that same hospital ? Oh, cqn't touch AMA.

What did he actually FIX ?

 

[Amamba]

Oh, and reading down the list... Whomever came up with this had the audacity to praise Obama for expanding the Hate Crime Act, even though he appointed an openly racist Attorney General that flat out said he would not prosecute any black person for a hate crime committed against a white person because in his twisted mind it's not the hate crime but "the crime driven by resentment" ?

That's rich.

 

[kilofoxtrot]

What did he actually FIX ?

In today's age of scorched earth politics...... no one is fixing anything. We are divided and unwilling to compromise.

 

[Amamba]

In today's age of scorched earth politics...... no one is fixing anything. We are divided and unwilling to compromise.

Which is why we need a centrist, pragmatic, non-ideological third party. Unfortunately the closest we have is libertarians, and while I agree with much of their social views, I think they don't live in the real world when it comes to economy or international affairs.

 

[hydrogen3]

Which is why we need a centrist, pragmatic, non-ideological third party. Unfortunately the closest we have is libertarians, and while I agree with much of their social views, I think they don't live in the real world when it comes to economy or international affairs.

I am the voice of hope and freedom. Lol

 

[kilofoxtrot]

Which is why we need a centrist, pragmatic, non-ideological third party. Unfortunately the closest we have is libertarians, and while I agree with much of their social views, I think they don't live in the real world when it comes to economy or international affairs.

I would like to see a third party.... only if we elect by majority instead of plurality like we do now. I have no problem with runoff elections.

 

[kilofoxtrot]

I am the voice of hope and freedom. Lol

If you run for election, at least I know where you stand. I mean that as a complement.

 

[A895]

Conservatism is the antidote to tyranny. It's the only one. It's based on thousands of years of human experience. There is nothing narrow about the conservative philosophy. It's a liberating philosophy. It is a magnificent philosophy. It is a philosophy for the ages, for all times.

Yeah, no.

Posted via the iMore App for Android

 

[A895]

Oh, and reading down the list... Whomever came up with this had the audacity to praise Obama for expanding the Hate Crime Act, even though he appointed an openly racist Attorney General that flat out said he would not prosecute any black person for a hate crime committed against a white person because in his twisted mind it's not the hate crime but "the crime driven by resentment" ?

That's rich.

Honest question, has there ever been a documented high profile hate crime against a white American? I can't think of any, when you go the other way, AA's have been shot, killed, and lynched and beaten to death for years in this country from hate crimes, so I can see where he is coming from.

Posted via the iMore App for Android

 

[kilofoxtrot]

Honest question, has there ever been a documented high profile hate crime against a white American? I can't think of any, when you go the other way, AA's have been shot, killed, and lynched and beaten to death for years in this country from hate crimes, so I can see where he is coming from.

Posted via the iMore App for Android

The only case(s) have been due to sexual orientation. Gay bashing..... literally.

I do hate Tom Brady... does that count? GO COLTS!!!

 

[Amamba]

I would like to see a third party.... only if we elect by majority instead of plurality like we do now. I have no problem with runoff elections.

The majority vote is a very dangerous thing. I personally wouldn't want CA, NY, TX and FL deciding everything for the rest of the country.

I actually would like to see even more proportional system, just like what they have in many European countries. Instead of a single party forming the government even if it only got 1% more of the vote, have them divide seats in the Cabinet proportional to the % of votes taken; this way, even the smaller parties like Libertarians could have a say in how the government is run, and also this setup makes forming new parties more viable - if the Tea Party, for instance, broke away, instead of handing the victory to the Democrats as it would happen under the existing conditions, they would ensure that they get to form the government along with Republicans - and be heard.

I think this approach creates a far stronger two-way connection between the voters and the government, a smaller party would be more aligned with the views of the people who vote for it, and would be forced to pay attention to their base's wishes, unlike the two behemoth coalitions we have now, too huge to be influenced by any one group of voters, and really too huge to listen to anyone. And it would force the smaller parties to compromise and look for allies, as no single party would have enough votes to do it alone. Of course the flip side of such an arrangement is that it's less stable. But the stability we have in our politics looks more and more like the stability of a corpse.

 

[kilofoxtrot]

The majority vote is a very dangerous thing. I personally wouldn't want CA, NY, TX and FL deciding everything for the rest of the country.

I actually would like to see even more proportional system, just like what they have in many European countries. Instead of a single party forming the government even if it only got 1% more of the vote, have them divide seats in the Cabinet proportional to the % of votes taken; this way, even the smaller parties like Libertarians could have a say in how the government is run, and also this setup makes forming new parties more viable - if the Tea Party, for instance, broke away, instead of handing the victory to the Democrats as it would happen under the existing conditions, they would ensure that they get to form the government along with Republicans - and be heard.

I think this approach creates a far stronger two-way connection between the voters and the government, a smaller party would be more aligned with the views of the people who vote for it, and would be forced to pay attention to their base's wishes, unlike the two behemoth coalitions we have now, too huge to be influenced by any one group of voters, and really too huge to listen to anyone. And it would force the smaller parties to compromise and look for allies, as no single party would have enough votes to do it alone. Of course the flip side of such an arrangement is that it's less stable. But the stability we have in our politics looks more and more like the stability of a corpse.

Majority works great in a 2 party system. What about a 3rd party? In 1992, more people voted against Clinton than those who voted for him.

 

[Amamba]

Honest question, has there ever been a documented high profile hate crime against a white American? I can't think of any, when you go the other way, AA's have been shot, killed, and lynched and beaten to death for years in this country from hate crimes, so I can see where he is coming from.

Posted via the iMore App for Android

So you're saying there was no hate crimes against white Americans ? That's BS.

All it shows is that when there's black on white violence, no hate crime charges are usually brought up. The system is biased.

A US Marine and his friend attacked and beat up by an angry black mob right after Michael Brown shooting. No hate crime charges.

A black boy in Detroit is playing chicken with traffic and gets hit by a pickup truck. The 54 year old white pickup truck driver gets out to check on the boy, is being beaten into a coma by a mob of black men shouting racial slurs (in the presence of many witnesses), spends days in a coma and weeks in a hospital, no hate crime charges are brought up against any of the attackers (there was, however, a charge of "ethnic intimidation" that doesn't equal hate crime).

Shall I go on ? Or will this post be flagged and deleted like my other one ?

There's about 5 times as much black on white violent crime as there's white on black. Google up FBI crime stats. With black community at 13% of the population and white community at 64% (Wiki data for 2010), there's roughly 5 times more whites than blacks and yet the blacks attack whites 5 times more often. Yet, only the whites commit hate crimes ? Come on, don't insult my intelligence. Do you know how many times I was called a "c"-word ? There's plenty of black racists, and they are not afraid to show it, because only the white racism is being (rightfully) frowned upon and prosecuted.

There's a strong bias in the way our government applies hate crime laws. It's unfair, and unfairness breeds contempt and resentment. As AG Holder had said many times himself. Instead of putting out the fire of racial tensions, the government pours more gasoline into it. Two wrongs don't make it right, you don't fight bias with bias. Won't you agree ?

By the way, it was a black woman that saved the Detroit driver's life. The problem is not with race or skin color. It's with mentality. The only way out of this mess is to try and change the mentality of some people. Both black and white. But for this, the laws should be applied fairly and evenly. Pandering to the hate mongers like Jesse Jackson will produce the opposite effect.

 

[ItnStln]

Liberals equal "we will do it for you" whereas conservatives equate to "this is how it's done". See the difference? It's a "feed me" vs "showing me how to feed myself" kind of thing. If you're ticked off at what I've posted then you should have skipped over it like I warned you to do beforehand.......Okay, I'm done venting. Forgive me for any typos. I'll clean up any errors later on. C-ya!

Well said!

 

[Amamba]

Majority works great in a 2 party system. What about a 3rd party? In 1992, more people voted against Clinton than those who voted for him.

Perhaps you and I have different ideas of what the majority means.

A direct majority is the total vote count. Electing the president by a direct majority would mean that the top 4-5 populated states - CA, TX, FL, NY - will always decide the outcome of election. So the candidates only have to listen to the most populated states, and can ignore the rest - who cares what people in WY or NH think, they are bound to be a minority.

I think the problem is the "winner takes all" system we have. We need more proportionality, not less.