Yes, Obama is a terrible president, and NO he is not smart

[Truthmatters]

not a shred of fact and all bullshit hate speach

 

[candycorn]

Redfish is the new laughing sock err I mean stock.

laugh away candy ass. But its you obama bots who look like fools every day on this and other forums.

your blind ass support of your failed president borders on insanity. NOTHING your messiah has done has worked, he has divided this country unilke any president since Lincoln. The muslim jihadists are laughing at the incompetence of his state dept, CIA, and FBI. The idiots can't even decide who is in charge of interrogating the living boston bomber.

Total fail in every aspect----worst president in history.

I always find a reason to chuckle at the conservatives here. 332-206. Suck on that.

 

[Redfish]

Redfish is the new laughing sock err I mean stock.

laugh away candy ass. But its you obama bots who look like fools every day on this and other forums.

your blind ass support of your failed president borders on insanity. NOTHING your messiah has done has worked, he has divided this country unilke any president since Lincoln. The muslim jihadists are laughing at the incompetence of his state dept, CIA, and FBI. The idiots can't even decide who is in charge of interrogating the living boston bomber.

Total fail in every aspect----worst president in history.

I always find a reason to chuckle at the conservatives here. 332-206. Suck on that.

yes, the voters made a mistake last november. Romney made some dumb moves and the media was determined to give obama another term.

Even many democrats are now having second thoughts about obama.

Do you support the move in congress to make them exempt from obamacare?

 

[Redfish]

not a shred of fact and all bullshit hate speach

an accurate description of 99% of your posts. thanks for sharing.

 

[longknife]

A couple of points.

EVERY SINGLE previous president opened his school records for all to see.
Obama?

Every single previous president made defending this nation from all threats, foreign or domestic, their number one priority.
Obama?

Most previous presidents held frequent cabinet meetings open to the public.
Obama?

I could go on and on but this should bring on the ranting and raving from You Know Who.

 

[Redfish]

Cassidy proposes bill to force the president and his cabinet to use health law's insurance exchanges | NOLA.com


do any of you libs support this?

 

[HUGGY]

Just point counter point.

care to post statistics on national debt, unemployment, number on foodstamps, number in poverty?

Bush beats obama on every measure of economic success.

AND, from 9/12/2001 until obama took office, there were no terrorists attacks on US soil. Since obama took office---------you count em.

There is a republican majority in the House. If what you claim is true it should be easy to bring up charges of impeachment. Or would you just prefer to whine like a little bitch? Do something about it or shut your stinking pie hole.

 

[regent]

Pretty soon Obama's presidential rating will be in the hands of the historians, and what the posters believe will soon be an historical footnote. Bush, for example will probably always be in the bottom ten, he is now rated as fifth worst American president, library, family or whatever. Obama has only been rated by historians once and it was at the end of his first two years in office. At that time he was rated as 15th. best American president, and where his position will be in later years who knows. He may be rated even higher than 15th best?

 

[Redfish]

Just point counter point.

care to post statistics on national debt, unemployment, number on foodstamps, number in poverty?

Bush beats obama on every measure of economic success.

AND, from 9/12/2001 until obama took office, there were no terrorists attacks on US soil. Since obama took office---------you count em.

There is a republican majority in the House. If what you claim is true it should be easy to bring up charges of impeachment. Or would you just prefer to whine like a little bitch? Do something about it or shut your stinking pie hole.

The house has tried to fix some of the mess created by obozo. They have passed several budget bills but Dingy Harry Reid has not let a single one be discussed on the floor of the senate. The house is 1/3 of the govt. the dems control the senate and the WH, the economic mess belongs to them.

it is a simple fact that there were no terrorist attacks on US soil from 9/12/01 until obama took office. Bush gets credit for that whether you fools like it or not.

 

[Redfish]

Pretty soon Obama's presidential rating will be in the hands of the historians, and what the posters believe will soon be an historical footnote. Bush, for example will probably always be in the bottom ten, he is now rated as fifth worst American president, library, family or whatever. Obama has only been rated by historians once and it was at the end of his first two years in office. At that time he was rated as 15th. best American president, and where his position will be in later years who knows. He may be rated even higher than 15th best?

depends on who is doing the ratings. get a bunch of left wing historians together and DUH, all GOP presidents suck. get a bunch of right wing historians together and DUH, all dem presidents suck.

its a stupid gotcha game. play it if it makes you feel good, but it means nothing.

 

[regent]

Pretty soon Obama's presidential rating will be in the hands of the historians, and what the posters believe will soon be an historical footnote. Bush, for example will probably always be in the bottom ten, he is now rated as fifth worst American president, library, family or whatever. Obama has only been rated by historians once and it was at the end of his first two years in office. At that time he was rated as 15th. best American president, and where his position will be in later years who knows. He may be rated even higher than 15th best?

depends on who is doing the ratings. get a bunch of left wing historians together and DUH, all GOP presidents suck. get a bunch of right wing historians together and DUH, all dem presidents suck.

its a stupid gotcha game. play it if it makes you feel good, but it means nothing.

I wonder who is the more honest, the 200 historians that are polled or say the nine Supreme Court judges? The judges are appointed according to their political pursuasions and anticipated decisions, and the historians usually hired according to their knowledge, degrees and education. I tend to trust the historians more than the judges appointed for their loyalty to political party.

 

[Redfish]

Pretty soon Obama's presidential rating will be in the hands of the historians, and what the posters believe will soon be an historical footnote. Bush, for example will probably always be in the bottom ten, he is now rated as fifth worst American president, library, family or whatever. Obama has only been rated by historians once and it was at the end of his first two years in office. At that time he was rated as 15th. best American president, and where his position will be in later years who knows. He may be rated even higher than 15th best?

depends on who is doing the ratings. get a bunch of left wing historians together and DUH, all GOP presidents suck. get a bunch of right wing historians together and DUH, all dem presidents suck.

its a stupid gotcha game. play it if it makes you feel good, but it means nothing.

I wonder who is the more honest, the 200 historians that are polled or say the nine Supreme Court judges? The judges are appointed according to their political pursuasions and anticipated decisions, and the historians usually hired according to their knowledge, degrees and education. I tend to trust the historians more than the judges appointed for their loyalty to political party.

tough choice. Since most historians are also college professors and since most colleges lean left to far left-----------

As to SCOTUS, once confirmed they are there for life so they do not have to worry about pissing off either side.......Roberts vote on obamacare is a perfect example.

so to your question I would have to say SCOTUS.

 

[editec]

I fear that most of us cannot understand that EVERYTHING that happens in the economy is important to understanding what happens to it.

Trying to pin ALL the BLAME on a POTUS for the economy is the very best way I can think of announcing that you are clueless about MACROeconomics.

 

[regent]

depends on who is doing the ratings. get a bunch of left wing historians together and DUH, all GOP presidents suck. get a bunch of right wing historians together and DUH, all dem presidents suck.

its a stupid gotcha game. play it if it makes you feel good, but it means nothing.

I wonder who is the more honest, the 200 historians that are polled or say the nine Supreme Court judges? The judges are appointed according to their political pursuasions and anticipated decisions, and the historians usually hired according to their knowledge, degrees and education. I tend to trust the historians more than the judges appointed for their loyalty to political party.

tough choice. Since most historians are also college professors and since most colleges lean left to far left-----------

As to SCOTUS, once confirmed they are there for life so they do not have to worry about pissing off either side.......Roberts vote on obamacare is a perfect example.

so to your question I would have to say SCOTUS.

Yes a few judges, once appointed have decided to vote other than political party. But how many judges and can we identify them? Was Warren one?

 

[Redfish]

I wonder who is the more honest, the 200 historians that are polled or say the nine Supreme Court judges? The judges are appointed according to their political pursuasions and anticipated decisions, and the historians usually hired according to their knowledge, degrees and education. I tend to trust the historians more than the judges appointed for their loyalty to political party.

tough choice. Since most historians are also college professors and since most colleges lean left to far left-----------

As to SCOTUS, once confirmed they are there for life so they do not have to worry about pissing off either side.......Roberts vote on obamacare is a perfect example.

so to your question I would have to say SCOTUS.

Yes a few judges, once appointed have decided to vote other than political party. But how many judges and can we identify them? Was Warren one?

most of them have remained true to their ideology but not necessarily the party of the pres that put them on the bench. Thats why it's a lifetime job.