Enjoy: You are a witness to OBAMA One of the WORST Leaders in History
Italica
leaders in all of History. This man is well beyond clueless, he is
without any doubt the worst president in USA history and one of the
most inept leaders of all time.
serebel
the world's ills. Classic deflection from the brain dead left..
miles
> Now watch how the lib reply to this. They'll pull the blame GWB for
> the world's ills. Classic deflection from the brain dead left..
The left will keep using Bush as the excuse for their own failures as
long as they can.
william hubbard
He is The Master if Disaster, and the Ayatollah of All Crapola.
Siobhan Medeiros
Of course we will. Because it's all true. Bush was the worst
president ever. It'll take years to clean up his mess.
Deaf Power
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:55:42 -0800 (PST), serebel <ser...@aol.com>
wrote:
>Now watch how the lib reply to this. They'll pull the blame GWB for
>the world's ills. Classic deflection from the brain dead left..
Watch how the neoclowns howl all night to the moon. They'll pull the
blame on Clinton and Obama for the world's ills. Classic deflection
from the brain dead neoclowns......
Chaos out of Order
And when Konrad Adenauer was trying to clean up the mess of his
predecessor, and some old Nazis blame Adnauer, do you think some of
those Nazis chuckled and said, "They'll keep using Hitler as the
excuse for their own failures as long as they can"?
Igor
Oh, I see. With Obama, it's "will". Too bad that, with Bush, it's
"already has".
lorad
Wrong.
Bush Junior was the worst US president in history
miles
> Of course we will. Because it's all true. Bush was the worst
> president ever.
Bush was bad but wasn't the worst. Obama won not for his own merits or
senate record but because people hated Bush. Trouble is, people voted
for someone even worse. We now have an unprecedented deficit that
exceeds all other presidents combined and unemployment still rising.
Nothing good has come from Obama at all unless you spin it enough.
miles
> And when Konrad Adenauer was trying to clean up the mess of his
> predecessor, and some old Nazis blame Adnauer, do you think some of
> those Nazis chuckled and said, "They'll keep using Hitler as the
> excuse for their own failures as long as they can"?
Adenaur never blamed his own failures or broken promises on Hitler.
Obama has blamed Bush for his own failures.
Adenauer didn't spend almost $800 billion in his first 100 days.
Adenauer didn't promise money like that needed to be spent immediately
or we'll face rising unemployment.
Trouble is, the surplus pork $'s have hardly been spent at all even
though we were told it had to be to provide jobs needed NOW. Oh ya,
millions have been sent to non-existing congressional districts in
Arizona, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico etc. Heck, $800K was spent here in
Arizona for a new project that will employ a whopping 8 people. Guess
thats better than the millions spent for a science lab that will hire
only 1 new person. How can we trust government with our $'s when they
can't even produce an accurate simple short list of where the money has
gone?
Adenauer is no comparison to Obamas disaster.
Siobhan Medeiros
> Siobhan Medeiros wrote:
> > Of course we will. Because it's all true. Bush was the worst
> > president ever.
>
> Bush was bad but wasn't the worst.
Yes he was.
> Obama won not for his own merits or
> senate record but because people hated Bush.
He won because he was clean, and had the guts to vote for what he knew
was right instead of what was popular at the time.
> Trouble is, people voted
> for someone even worse.
Nope. Obama on his worst day is still better than Bush.
> We now have an unprecedented deficit that
> exceeds all other presidents combined
I always wonder where you "fiscal conservatives" were when Bush was
spending like a drunken sailor.
In case you haven't heard, Obama had a little bit of a mess to clean
up.
> and unemployment still rising.
As it was a year after the Bush recession, the Bush Sr. recession, and
the Reagan recession. Why weren't you rightards bleating then? At
least GDP is back on the rise - an impressive achievement considering
the mess Bush caused.
> Nothing good has come from Obama at all unless you spin it enough.
Other than saving the US auto industry, regaining the respect of the
world, starting to turn around the economy, sorting out the financial
crisis and - don't forget- reforming health care.
Siobhan Medeiros
> Chaos out of Order wrote:
>
> > And when Konrad Adenauer was trying to clean up the mess of his
> > predecessor, and some old Nazis blame Adnauer, do you think some of
> > those Nazis chuckled and said, "They'll keep using Hitler as the
> > excuse for their own failures as long as they can"?
>
> Adenaur never blamed his own failures or broken promises on Hitler.
Then he was an idiot.
> Obama has blamed Bush for his own failures.
And what "failures" would those be?
>
> Adenauer didn't spend almost $800 billion in his first 100 days.
Adenauer didn't have the greatest financial crisis since the Great
Depression to clean up. And I see you're not bitching about Bush
spending 700 billion in his LAST 100 days.
> Adenauer didn't promise money like that needed to be spent immediately
> or we'll face rising unemployment.
>
Actually, he did. Look up the Marshall Plan, moron.
> Trouble is, the surplus pork $'s have hardly been spent at all even
> though we were told it had to be to provide jobs needed NOW.
And it has been credited for saving hundreds of thousands of jobs.
> Oh ya,
> millions have been sent to non-existing congressional districts in
> Arizona, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico etc. Heck, $800K was spent here in
> Arizona for a new project that will employ a whopping 8 people.
Then you should be blasting your Senator, John McCain.
BTW, I hear Arizona is one of the most corrupt states in the union, is
that true?
> Guess
> thats better than the millions spent for a science lab that will hire
> only 1 new person.
Really? Where's that? Cite, please?
>How can we trust government with our $'s when they
> can't even produce an accurate simple short list of where the money has
> gone?
>
So why weren't you rightards bitching when Bush forgot where he put
the $700 billion he shelled out?
Siobhan Medeiros
The Wiz
Deaf Power
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:36:37 -0700, The Wiz <anyw...@nowhere.net>
wrote:
Go ahead continue howling into the moon.
miles
> And what "failures" would those be?
Obama stated unemployment would not go above 8% if he got his porkulus
package through. Well he got it. When unemployment continued to rise
(and still is) Obama blamed his failure on Bush. The left fails and its
the rights fault and you buy it.
> And I see you're not bitching about Bush
> spending 700 billion in his LAST 100 days.
I strongly disagreed with Bush's TARP plan. I was hoping Obama with all
his campaign talk about Bush's deficit would overturn TARP. Instead he
blew it out of the water with even higher spending.
> And it has been credited for saving hundreds of thousands of jobs.
BULL. Only 10% of the money has been spent. Projects we were told that
were needed NOW to provide jobs won't start for years to come. 100's of
1000's of jobs have been lost. The left spins it to say jobs were saved
and all is wonderful. Easy to say it would have been worse. Trouble
is, Obama said unemployment would peak at 8% and go down. Jobs are
still being lost, not created. Spin it how you want to make a failure
look good.
> Then you should be blasting your Senator, John McCain.
McCain isn't the one who asked for nor wasted any of the porkulus money
coming to Arizona. None the less, I don't like McCain one bit. Used to
but not since 2000.
> BTW, I hear Arizona is one of the most corrupt states in the union, is
> that true?
Janet Napaletano bankrupt our state and then left for the Obama wagon.
Other than Napaletano who is thankfully out of AZ I do not know what
corruption you are referring to.
> So why weren't you rightards bitching when Bush forgot where he put
> the $700 billion he shelled out?
Bush's TARP bailout plan was loudly blasted by Republican voters. You
seem to have forgotten.
miles
> He won because he was clean, and had the guts to vote for what he knew
> was right instead of what was popular at the time.
Obama didn't run using his senate record and didn't win because of it.
People hated Bush. Thats why Obama won.
> I always wonder where you "fiscal conservatives" were when Bush was
> spending like a drunken sailor.
Bush was NOT a conservative. Republicans were very ticked that he
refused to veto any spending bill. Voters were very upset at his TARP
plan. Obamas spending dwarfs that of Bush. It took only 100 days for
Obama to triple Bush's 8 years of deficit.
> As it was a year after the Bush recession, the Bush Sr. recession, and
> the Reagan recession. Why weren't you rightards bleating then?
Reagan inherited Carters mess yet you leftards never complained about
Carter, only Reagan. Reagan never said unemployment would peak at 8%
unless we spent $800 billion immediately. Obama has made promises and
they have failed.
Igor
> Siobhan Medeiros wrote:
> > Of course we will. Because it's all true. Bush was the worst
> > president ever.
>
> Bush was bad but wasn't the worst. Obama won not for his own merits or
> senate record but because people hated Bush. Trouble is, people voted
> for someone even worse. We now have an unprecedented deficit that
> exceeds all other presidents combined
That's not even close to being true. Maybe you should check your
brain flatulance before you just repeat what all the other idiots are
saying. For starters, try looking up the national debt when Obama
took office and compare that with all expenditures under Obama, either
actual or projected. Maybe then you'll understand how ridiculous that
statement actually is.
>and unemployment still rising.
As a result of the credit crunch that has a direct lineage back to
Gramm-Leach-Bliley. This is something that had been brewing for the
past ten years. For that reason, I can't even directly blame Bush,
even though the shit finally hit the fan under his watch.
> Nothing good has come from Obama at all unless you spin it enough.
He hasn't been in office long enough for any of his policies to have
any real effect yet. Come back in two years and maybe I'll agree with
you.
Bert Byfield
> because he, and his people, ran a very smart campaign. He also won
> because the president before him was incredibly unpopular. He also
> won because, luckily for him and unluckily for everybody else, the
> economy tanked, taking foreign affairs (where he is obviously
> weak, and his first year has proved it) off the table. He also won
> because he promised a bunch of utopian, unrealistic bullshit
So far, so good.
> to a
> bunch of nimrods who dont bother to actually investigate or even
> question anything..
You are talking about 60% of the American voters.
> and then proceeded to fail many of those
> promises once elected.
It's an old American tradition.
> And most importantly, he won because he
> succeeded in motivating two groups of people who usually are
> eligible to vote but dont show up in big numbers on poll day...
> blacks and students. They ALL voted for Obama, and pushed him
> over.
And he won because the Republican Party was a tool of Satan, and the
voters knew it.
> People like you, who constantly excuse Obamas performance, are
> quick to blame everything bad on Bush. Its funny. Obamas not
> guilty for anything,
Obama is bombing peoples houses with little psycho drone devices.
> Bush is guilty for everything. Anybody with
> half a brain, which probably excludes you, will realize that the
> economic woes of this economy cannot be blamed on one person, or
> even one party. All kinds of democrats and republicans and
> independants alike, are to blame for what happened.
The Republicans chanted "BAILOUT BAILOUT BAILOUT BAILOUT BAILOUT
BAILOUT BAILOUT BAILOUT BAILOUT!" and then looted the US Treasury.
The Democrats responded by chanting "STIMULUS STIMULUS STIMULUS
STIMULUS STIMULUS STIMULUS STIMULUS STIMULUS STIMULUS!" and then
looted the US Treasury. We call it the "Two Party System."
Bert Byfield
>>voters knew it.
> troll of the week and its only wednesday
When you are in charge of a big armed force, and you use it to make
torture legal, destroy due process, and murder people, you are a tool
of Satan. It doesn't require a troll to see this and say it. It
requires only an objective mind.
miles
> The Republicans chanted "BAILOUT BAILOUT BAILOUT
Hardly. Bush was not popular for his TARP plans and Obama even less so
from Republicans.
stmarysbloodycunthole
LITTLE LISPY LADY JULIANNI GINNING UP THE FEAR IN NY AGAIN, HE DEALS
WITH TERRORISTS IN HIS BUSINESS, BUT GINS UP FEAR FOR NYORKERS, WHAT A
FAGGOT PROPAGANDIST HE IS AND REPIGS LOVE HIM,
BBBBWWWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Siobhan Medeiros
> Siobhan Medeiros wrote:
> > He won because he was clean, and had the guts to vote for what he knew
> > was right instead of what was popular at the time.
>
> Obama didn't run using his senate record and didn't win because of it.
> People hated Bush. Thats why Obama won.
>
> > I always wonder where you "fiscal conservatives" were when Bush was
> > spending like a drunken sailor.
>
> Bush was NOT a conservative. Republicans were very ticked that he
> refused to veto any spending bill.
You mean the ones that they were passing? Idiot.
> Voters were very upset at his TARP
> plan. Obamas spending dwarfs that of Bush. It took only 100 days for
> Obama to triple Bush's 8 years of deficit.
Do you even know what a deficit is, moron?
>
> > As it was a year after the Bush recession, the Bush Sr. recession, and
> > the Reagan recession. Why weren't you rightards bleating then?
>
> Reagan inherited Carters mess yet you leftards never complained about
> Carter, only Reagan.
Bullshit. It was Carter that inherited the mess from Ford
(stagflation). Reagan's recession didn't start until one year after
he took office, and went on for TWO YEARs, while Obama has already
restored GDP growth.
> Reagan never said unemployment would peak at 8%
> unless we spent $800 billion immediately. Obama has made promises and
> they have failed.
No, he said that unemployment would go through the roof if GM and
Chrysler were allowed to go bankrupt. And he was right. And he also
said that unemployment would probably rise through 2009 no matter what
he did.
The bottom line is you're blaming Obama for not being able to clean up
the huge mess YOUR guy made.
Siobhan Medeiros
>
> Unfortunately, as with Carter, sometimes humnitarians make lousy
> presidents.
>
> Obamas seeming inability to make a decision often reminds me of
> Carter.
You mean like when the "decider" decided to invade Iraq?
Siobhan Medeiros
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:25:22 -0800 (PST), Siobhan Medeiros
>
> <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >He won because he was clean, and had the guts to vote for what he knew
> >was right instead of what was popular at the time.
>
> because he, and his people, ran a very smart campaign. He also won
> because the president before him was incredibly unpopular. He also won
> because, luckily for him and unluckily for everybody else, the economy
> tanked, taking foreign affairs (where he is obviously weak, and his
> first year has proved it)
Say what? Everybody loves this guy. He's managed to go a good way to
restore America's shattered image.
> off the table. He also won because he
> promised a bunch of utopian, unrealistic bullshit to a bunch of
> nimrods who dont bother to actually investigate or even question
> anything..
Really? When did he do that?
Obviously health care reform isn't unrealistic, because it's about to
happen.
And he's said all along it was going to take awhile to repair the
huge, ugly mess your guys left behind.
> and then proceeded to fail many of those promises once
> elected. And most importantly, he won because he succeeded in
> motivating two groups of people who usually are eligible to vote but
> dont show up in big numbers on poll day... blacks and students. They
> ALL voted for Obama, and pushed him over.
>
Who'd you expect them to vote for? The same idiots who caused this
economic disaster to begin with?
>
>
> >> Trouble is, people voted
> >> for someone even worse.
>
> >Nope. Obama on his worst day is still better than Bush.
>
> thats your opinion. They're about the same, to me, so far.
>
That's because you are a moron.
> Meet the new boss.........
>
> >As it was a year after the Bush recession, the Bush Sr. recession, and
> >the Reagan recession. Why weren't you rightards bleating then? At
> >least GDP is back on the rise - an impressive achievement considering
> >the mess Bush caused.
>
> --------
>
> People like you, who constantly excuse Obamas performance, are quick
> to blame everything bad on Bush.
Duuuuuhhhh YEAH! BECAUSE HE'S THE ONE WHO ACTUALLY MADE THE MESS!
I noticed you were unable to dispute that other Republican Presidents
were unable to clean up their recessions by this time. Duck the
question some more, turkey.
> Its funny. Obamas not guilty for
> anything, Bush is guilty for everything. Anybody with half a brain,
> which probably excludes you, will realize that the economic woes of
> this economy cannot be blamed on one person, or even one party.
I'd say 80% of blame goes to the Republicans, 20% on the Democrats.
> All
> kinds of democrats and republicans and independants alike, are to
> blame for what happened.
>
True, but it was your guys who were running all three houses for six
of the last eight years, and who brought in the deregulation which
caused this mess. So you get the bulk of the blame.
> You, and all those like you, are ridiculous, and really not worth all
> tha tmuch effort to debate. Your outrage is selective and
> hypocritical. YOUR GUY cant be blamed for anything. The other guy can
> be blamed for everything.
>
Yes, because he was an incredibly lousy President. It's going to take
Obama's first term just to clean up the mess he left behind.
>
>
> >> Nothing good has come from Obama at all unless you spin it enough.
>
> >Other than saving the US auto industry, regaining the respect of the
> >world
>
> Nope.
>
Yup.
> the Chinese gave him lip service. He's just another flunky in a suit
> to them. Europe pretty much did the same thing.
Suuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeee.
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2009-03/2009-03-29-voa16.cfm?moddate=2009-03-29
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/11/08/2009-11-08_europe_loves_president_obama__the_united_states_not_so_much.html
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/obamas-popularity-in-europe-still-sky-high_100245526.html
http://beta.thehindu.com/news/international/article49302.ece
http://blogs.bet.com/news/pamela/2009/11/16/obamas-popularity-in-china-triggers-dialogue-on-race/
See those? You know what those are? They're called CITATIONS, and
are excellent for showing people how stupid you really are. What have
you got besides what you've pulled out of your own ass?
Bert Byfield
> I agree. You know they're probably doing the same thing right now
> in Afghanistan, under Obama.
Probably so. The books will start coming out after a while.
> Who was it said, war is hell? Grant? bout 200 years ago?
> Nothing much ever changes.
It doesn't matter how often this is quoted. There are rules of war.
Everything is NOT permitted by saying the magic word "war."
Siobhan Medeiros
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:22:43 -0800 (PST), Siobhan Medeiros
> remotely criticises Obama? I didnt vote for Bush, I thought he was an
> asshole.
>
> Your guy is supposed to be BETTER than Bush. Saying he's just as bad,
> isnt helping your case.
>
> You got nothing else, so dont waste anymore time, go ahead and play
> the race card.
The point, idiot, was that when you back a guy who "shoots from the
hip" instead of waiting for all the data before making the call, you
get a president who makes lousy decisions. Moron.
Siobhan Medeiros
> Siobhan Medeiros wrote:
> > And what "failures" would those be?
>
> Obama stated unemployment would not go above 8% if he got his porkulus
> package through. Well he got it. When unemployment continued to rise
> (and still is) Obama blamed his failure on Bush. The left fails and its
It is their fault. They're the ones that started this mess, remember?
>
> > And I see you're not bitching about Bush
> > spending 700 billion in his LAST 100 days.
>
> I strongly disagreed with Bush's TARP plan. I was hoping Obama with all
> his campaign talk about Bush's deficit would overturn TARP. Instead he
> blew it out of the water with even higher spending.
As I recall, McCain backed it too. Would you rather see the country
go into the next Great Depression? You think 10% unemployment is bad,
try 20%.
>
> > And it has been credited for saving hundreds of thousands of jobs.
>
> BULL. Only 10% of the money has been spent.
Well, they've already created/saved 640,000 jobs, imagine then what
will happen when they spend the other 90%.
>Projects we were told that
> were needed NOW to provide jobs won't start for years to come. 100's of
> 1000's of jobs have been lost. The left spins it to say jobs were saved
> and all is wonderful. Easy to say it would have been worse.
It is easy because it's true.
>Trouble
> is, Obama said unemployment would peak at 8% and go down.
As I recall, Obama has been saying all along that unemployment is
unlikely to peak before the end of the year.
> Jobs are
> still being lost, not created. Spin it how you want to make a failure
> look good.
>
So tell me how doing nothing would have made it better.
> > Then you should be blasting your Senator, John McCain.
>
> McCain isn't the one who asked for nor wasted any of the porkulus money
> coming to Arizona. None the less, I don't like McCain one bit. Used to
> but not since 2000.
> > BTW, I hear Arizona is one of the most corrupt states in the union, is
> > that true?
>
> Janet Napaletano bankrupt our state and then left for the Obama wagon.
> Other than Napaletano who is thankfully out of AZ I do not know what
> corruption you are referring to.
>
> > So why weren't you rightards bitching when Bush forgot where he put
> > the $700 billion he shelled out?
>
> Bush's TARP bailout plan was loudly blasted by Republican voters. You
> seem to have forgotten.
Yes, I have. Because as I recall, they were too busy praying for
success.
Siobhan Medeiros
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:52:46 -0800 (PST), Siobhan Medeiros
>
> Did I say I backed Bush? I did not.
>
Did I say I was talking about Bush? I did not.
> You're doing exactly the same thing I called you out before.
>
Only in your fevered imagination.
> Anytime ANYBODY criticises Obama, you cant take the heat, you cannot
> answer the charges, you immediately criticize Bush, like that makes
> Obama innocent.
Whether it's about Bush or not, it's still valid.
I notice you haven't answered the actual point, rightard idiot.
>
> You're the moron. You simply cannot abide anyone making any sort of
> negative judgement about Obama.
>
> Demorroids. Blind, ignorant, intolerant demorroids. What you gonna
> do....
You can leave the country. It's liberal territory now.
Siobhan Medeiros
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:05:25 -0800 (PST), Siobhan Medeiros
>
> <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >On Nov 18, 5:14 am, miles <n...@nopers.com> wrote:
> >> Siobhan Medeiros wrote:
> >> > And what "failures" would those be?
>
> >> Obama stated unemployment would not go above 8% if he got his porkulus
> >> package through. Well he got it. When unemployment continued to rise
> >> (and still is) Obama blamed his failure on Bush. The left fails and its
> >> the rights fault and you buy it..
>
> >It is their fault. They're the ones that started this mess, remember?
>
Idiots like you can't accept the truth.
>
> Sure the previous administration was terrible and fucked up a lot of
> stuff. But if you want to completely blame them for this current
> economy, you're not only blind, you're ignorant.
>
I'd say they deserve at least 80% of the blame for this.
> Whats going to be hilarious and sad, is that during the next years
> elections, Obama and the dems still wont have anything to say about
> the dismal economy and unemployment.... 18 months after they took
> complete and total control over the government..
You've got a crystal ball now?
And it will be 22 months. Learn to count, retard.
>. except that its
> "Bushs fault". And this time, the Republitards will get to use your
> own stupid tactics, against you.
>
Presuming of course the economy still sucks. But as unemployment is a
lagging indicator and other indicators are showing signs of turning
around, that's a big assumption. You're going to look mighty stupid
if the economy has turned around completely by then. Then again, you
look mighty stupid now.
> and I hope the dems lose their asses and a bunch of them get sent
> packing, and I hope a bunch of republitards laugh in your stupid face
> and say exactly what you said to them... "you lost, get over it".
>
> Just watch and enjoy it sonny boi. You, and all the sneering idiot
> demorroids like yourself, deserve every bit of scorn you get.
>
> I bet you're a college student.
Siobhan Medeiros
>
> Just watch and enjoy it sonny boi. You, and all the sneering idiot
> demorroids like yourself, deserve every bit of scorn you get.
>
> I bet you're a college student.
>
Ah yes, another rightard who hates education. "Duh, I don't need no
fancy book larnin', no sirree"
Siobhan Medeiros
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:52:52 -0800 (PST), Siobhan Medeiros> another fine example of the tolerance and compassion promised to you
> by the left.
" Demorroids. Blind, ignorant, intolerant demorroids. What you gonna
> do.... "
Hypocritical as well as stupid. Nice.
Siobhan Medeiros
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:56:10 -0800 (PST), Siobhan Medeiros> you didnt answer this.
>
> you are, arent you.
Nope. Graduated long time ago. I'll bet you can't say the same. No
fancy book larnin' for you!
Siobhan Medeiros
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:57:11 -0800 (PST), Siobhan Medeiros
>
> the nail of truth i slammed into your forehead looks pretty ugly.
>
> you need a band aid.
Yeah, right. Your "nails of truth" are about as hard as Christmas
ribbons.