Will Obama go down as the GOAT, worst, or meh POTUS?

[EctoCanuck]

Benghazi was not proven to be a result of a video. That laughable claim was disproven a long time ago. It was a coordinated attack against the american consulate that the executive department ignored after being informed of it.

Let me google that for you...........


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Benghazi+Suspec...Internet+Video


Two other points about Benghazi..........

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Hillary+warned+...+security+cuts

And..............

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=General+of+Afri...ity+to+Stevens


Stop listening to conservative radio brah,it will rot your brain.

[captain_marvel]

So, once again... stuff that was Bad under Bush is Good (or simply ignored) under Obama

And your ridiculous claim of blaming Benghazi on a video is a laughable lie.


Continued, new, and expanded wars under Obama... Ignore that and pretend Repblicans are to blame for a fictional war.


What does that have to do with Obama? (I won't even bother asking for proof of your convenient claim).

Did Canadian press speculate that Obama would double the Afghanistan War from 50,000 to 100,000 troops, or that he'd still be in that War 6 1/2 years after taking office?

Did Canadian press speculate that Obama would actually stay in Iraq for three years, instead of 16 months as promised? Or that he'd try negotiating for an even longer presence?

Did Canadian press speculate that Obama would overthrow the Lybian government without Congressional authorization? Or that he'd be endlessly bombing Pakistan?

Lol this guy is still arguing in R/P all these years later? I wonder if blind right wingers realize they are just as biased and brain dead as the blind left wingers whos nuts they spend all day licking. Both extreme ends of the spectrum are fools and the guys all over Obamas nuts are JUST like the ones that blamed Bush for everything. Both sides are clowns and either side that becomes as passionate and set in their ideology as this guy needs help. Calm down John Wayne.

[fitnessislife]

Obama, the man that brought America back from the brink. Not to bad for a legacy.

[RIKTER]

Obama, the man that brought America back from the brink. Not to bad for a legacy.

Looks like someone is getting their name added to that trolling thread

[HumptyBrah]

He won the nobel peace prize ffs.

lmfao pls go

[jacklambert58]

LoL - Haters! Too damn funny how pathetic conservatards are getting.

[sawoobley]

Almost as bad as Jimmy Carter. If elected, Hillary will be worse due to the corruption and scandals she'd likely be part of.

[CitizenVagrant]

So what happens when uninsured Americans get sick and can't pay the medical bills? Who pays this?

State Indigent Funds or Medicare / Medicaid, which are funded by State / Fed taxes respectively.

But remind me how putting those "uninsured" Americans into an ACA-subsidized and ACA-compliant "insurance" plan (which they cannot be rated for appropriately and have fixed out of pocket maxes) will work when the subsidies to keep the "insurance" plans afloat (because the carriers are not eating those losses) are funded with the illegal taxes from the ACA?

So let's assume all your implications are true, and moving "uninsured" Citizens into ACA-compliant plans reduces Medicare / Medicaid / Indigent expenditures. Do Fed Taxes go down because the ACA is being funded from a different tax? Do State Taxes go down because the ACA is being funded from a different tax?

Lol no, those taxes stay the same or keep steadily rising. So the Fed's got less overhead, but they have additional income from the new tax, and the Citizens have a new tax to pay.

Remind me again how this is not an expansion of Medical Welfare? Because it's not insurance. For it to be insurance, it would need to follow the rules of insurance. Which it doesn't.

[fitnessislife]

LoL - Haters! Too damn funny how pathetic conservatards are getting.

I know that's the schtick that you usually come up with when you're at a loss for words, but try and come up with something a little more original than that. You know, like trying to disprove an argument.

[badreligion]

Worst but apologists like op and the msm will make it seem like he's the second coming.

[Motiviert]

The America Works program. He created millions of jobs.

Lolz

[Motiviert]

- Promised to end the Iraq War in 16 months. Finally removed all troops after 35 months, when negotiations to keep them longer failed.

- Told us of his great success creating a stable Iraq. Told us ISIS was an irrelevant JV team. Oops, and now we're back in Iraq with several thousand troops, fighting ISIS there and across the Middle East.

- Signed his first Executive Order to prevent the hiring of lobbyists into senior government positions. Waived that order a few dozen times so he could hire lobbyists into senior government positions.

- Promised a policy of "fiscal responsibility". Tripled the annual deficit from previous levels, and has signed $7+ Trillion of new debt into law since taking office.

- As a Senator, properly declared that Bush couldn't attack Iran without Congressional authorization. As President, ignored the War Powers Resolution, and attacked Libya without Congressional authorization. Stated he could do the same for Syria.

- Rammed an $800 Billion spending bill through Congress during his first month, with the intent of keeping Unemployment below 8% (and expected to have Unemployment down to 5% by 2013). Unemployment was above 8.3% through Aug 2012, and above 9% for 2 1/2 years.

- Told us in 2009 that his policies would ensure a 2012 deficit of $557 Billion. The 2012 deficit was $1,087 Billion.

- Blames everything on Republicans. Even though Democrats controlled the House & Senate during his first two years in office, and passed any bill he told them to.

- Believes that it's Constitutional for the Federal Government to dictate that every American must purchase a specified commercial product. Which the Supreme Court upheld as yet another massive new tax.

- Endlessly attacked and opposed the "Bush tax cuts". Until he continued and expanded them years after they would have expired.

- Promised to close Gitmo in a year. Still promising to close Gitmo, six years later.

- Promised to use public campaign financing. Turned himself into a liar after the 2008 nomination was locked up, proceeded to run a $750,000,000 campaign with private donations.

- Stated that he was against a mandate to purchase health insurance. Signed a massive "health care" bill into law, centered on a mandate for every American to purchase health insurance.

- Clearly and firmly stated his religious conviction that marriage is between a man & women. Until he needed to pander for more votes, six months before the election.

- Promised to end domestic surveillance of Americans. Radically expanded the program, while keeping it a secret from his supporters.

- Told us he'd restore America's position and respect in the world. So far, two countries have told him to f*ck off when we tried to get a fugitive from espionage charges returned to the US.

- Told us he wouldn't sin "Obamacare" legislation unless it was deficit neutral. We now know it will cost $1.3 Trillion over the next decade.

- And the now-infamous: "If you like your health insurance, you can keep it", along with the lie that household insurance costs would drop by $2,500 per year.

/thread

[bmpnok]

State Indigent Funds or Medicare / Medicaid, which are funded by State / Fed taxes respectively.

But remind me how putting those "uninsured" Americans into an ACA-subsidized and ACA-compliant "insurance" plan (which they cannot be rated for appropriately and have fixed out of pocket maxes) will work when the subsidies to keep the "insurance" plans afloat (because the carriers are not eating those losses) are funded with the illegal taxes from the ACA?

So let's assume all your implications are true, and moving "uninsured" Citizens into ACA-compliant plans reduces Medicare / Medicaid / Indigent expenditures. Do Fed Taxes go down because the ACA is being funded from a different tax? Do State Taxes go down because the ACA is being funded from a different tax?

Lol no, those taxes stay the same or keep steadily rising. So the Fed's got less overhead, but they have additional income from the new tax, and the Citizens have a new tax to pay.

Remind me again how this is not an expansion of Medical Welfare? Because it's not insurance. For it to be insurance, it would need to follow the rules of insurance. Which it doesn't.

It puts regulation on the insurance industry just as there are regulations in various industries.

Brb lets remove OSHA
Brb lets not regulate tobacco industry
Brb lets not require auto insurance

[CitizenVagrant]

It puts regulation on the insurance industry just as there are regulations in various industries.

Apparently "regulating the industry" now means "violating the fundamental principles of indemnity mechanics."

Go figure the same thing happened in the Subprime collapse. Government "incentivizes" banks loaning to people who can't possibly pay it back. These people would have never qualified for a loan normally. For all intents and purposes, they had no business getting a loan, but because of the government sticking their dick into the process of loan applications, it happens.

Then when the market predictably goes to utter ****, what happened? Of course the government bailed out the mortgage companies, because the ****ing government was pushing the **** all long. I mean why have a loan application in the first place? Why give someone a test if everyone automatically passes? FFS.

Same ****ing thing with the ACA. Why have underwriting fundamentals or actuarial science or indemnity principles when you're just going to ignore ****ing all of them and do the equivalent of trying to make a 747 fly by duct taping a bunch of pidgeons to the wings?

[bmpnok]

Apparently "regulating the industry" now means "violating the fundamental principles of indemnity mechanics."

Go figure the same thing happened in the Subprime collapse. Government "incentivizes" banks loaning to people who can't possibly pay it back. These people would have never qualified for a loan normally. For all intents and purposes, they had no business getting a loan, but because of the government sticking their dick into the process of loan applications, it happens.

Then when the market predictably goes to utter ****, what happened? Of course the government bailed out the mortgage companies, because the ****ing government was pushing the **** all long. I mean why have a loan application in the first place? Why give someone a test if everyone automatically passes? FFS.

Same ****ing thing with the ACA. Why have underwriting fundamentals or actuarial science or indemnity principles when you're just going to ignore ****ing all of them and do the equivalent of trying to make a 747 fly by duct taping a bunch of pidgeons to the wings?

Because in a modern nation with vast resources health should be a right not a privilege.

Brb born with chit genetics so I get terrible health problems.
Brb insurance companies turn me down for pre-existing conditions.

[ZioBot]

The America Works program. He created millions of jobs.

yeah leaving FEMA wide open ffs

[CitizenVagrant]

Because in a modern nation with vast resources health should be a right not a privilege.

Thank you for making the correct deduction to the core of the argument.

This is absolutely as close as you'll get to where the core of the matter lies - whether you think healthcare is a right or a privilege. But the thing is when people go to answer this question, most don't realize people already had a right to healthcare. Walk into any ER and they won't turn you away. Funds existed to insulate these people, Medicare / Caid / Indigent funds - all without trying to corrupt the mechanics of an entire industry.

No one said you had a right to the "best" healthcare, just like people don't have a right to the "best" food when they buy food stamps. They get their subsidy and they pick.

If I equated the ACA to Food Stamps, it'd be like I told every grocery store in America the only fruit they can sell is Florida Oranges (not other kinds of Oranges), and everyone who DOESN'T buy Oranges is taxed to subsidize the people who do. Also, I'm going to tax the people who are going to stores that charge over a certain amount for Oranges. Meanwhile I am still going to keep everyone's other taxes the same.

Lmao, apparently "reform" is now code for "government takeover."

Brb born with chit genetics so I get terrible health problems.
Brb insurance companies turn me down for pre-existing conditions.

I'd turn you down too, FFS. Every scrap of human life is not a sacred special snowflake. Why the **** would you spend more resources keeping someone alive who cannot, even if they wanted to, contribute back to the country in an amount equal or greater to the amount of medical resources required to keep them alive?

But because we're "so human" and "so noble" we're going to bankrupt ourselves trying to do this? All because we can't understand that human life has a very limited, real, and quantifiable value?

In a world where money is increasingly becoming more well known as the one true God, I find it odd that we cannot understand that human life has a limited monetary value, and that the value of human life can be directly equated to the value of the sum total of goods or services that individual can produce (or see produced as a consequence of their efforts). Dump enough into a worthless individual and you get a net loss.

All men might be created equal, and we are all equal in death. In the interim however, those values change. To think otherwise is naive, idealistic hubris.

[bmpnok]

Thank you for making the correct deduction to the core of the argument.

This is absolutely as close as you'll get to where the core of the matter lies - whether you think healthcare is a right or a privilege. But the thing is when people go to answer this question, most don't realize people already had a right to healthcare. Walk into any ER and they won't turn you away. Funds existed to insulate these people, Medicare / Caid / Indigent funds - all without trying to corrupt the mechanics of an entire industry.

No one said you had a right to the "best" healthcare, just like people don't have a right to the "best" food when they buy food stamps. They get their subsidy and they pick.

If I equated the ACA to Food Stamps, it'd be like I told every grocery store in America the only fruit they can sell is Florida Oranges (not other kinds of Oranges), and everyone who DOESN'T buy Oranges is taxed to subsidize the people who do. Also, I'm going to tax the people who are going to stores that charge over a certain amount for Oranges. Meanwhile I am still going to keep everyone's other taxes the same.

Lmao, apparently "reform" is now code for "government takeover."



I'd turn you down too, FFS. Every scrap of human life is not a sacred special snowflake. Why the **** would you spend more resources keeping someone alive who cannot, even if they wanted to, contribute back to the country in an amount equal or greater to the amount of medical resources required to keep them alive?

But because we're "so human" and "so noble" we're going to bankrupt ourselves trying to do this? All because we can't understand that human life has a very limited, real, and quantifiable value?

In a world where money is increasingly becoming more well known as the one true God, I find it odd that we cannot understand that human life has a limited monetary value, and that the value of human life can be directly equated to the value of the sum total of goods or services that individual can produce (or see produced as a consequence of their efforts). Dump enough into a worthless individual and you get a net loss.

All men might be created equal, and we are all equal in death. In the interim however, those values change. To think otherwise is naive, idealistic hubris.

So either we get insurance which is available to everyone or you just get sick and go to ER and not be able to pay your medical bills so taxpayers pick up the tab.
The issue is that this will then ruin a persons credit and he can't do chit. You bankrupt the person over something he most likely had no control over.

Healthcare prices are extremely inflated. The ACA allowed millions of people to become insured which were not previously insured. If the insurance companies were too unprepared for the shift after all the discussions let them go bankrupt and allow the smarter, more responsible insurance companies thrive and expand.

[CitizenVagrant]

So either we get insurance which is available to everyone or you just get sick and go to ER and not be able to pay your medical bills so taxpayers pick up the tab. The issue is that this will then ruin a persons credit and he can't do chit. You bankrupt the person over something he most likely had no control over.

False choice fallacy here. Insurance isn't for everyone. It was never intended to be for everyone. It could be for everyone, but only if everyone followed the rules. And it's not possible for everyone to follow the rules, because not everyone is capable of paying into insurance in accordance with their risk.

But the converse is not that these people are bankrupted. In all possibility, they might never have a loss. If the margin of a loss was great enough, they'd be insured, because there would be a for-profit carrier out there willing to take on that risk for a premium. But by default because a carrier cannot make a profit on these people, that is part of the reason they are excluded coverage. Because they are known losses.

For the sake of argument, we'll assume they do have a serious medical occurrence and / or disease and do not have insurance.

In that case they would need to negotiate payment terms with the provider independently. If they are not able to pay per the terms of their own negotiation, the amount would get thrown into collections. At that point, they'd need to settle the amount from there. Whether they use bankruptcy to do this or not is up to them.

But let's rewind for a little bit. If they didn't want the bill, they shouldn't have gotten the care. If they had to have the care or they would die, then they need to weigh the consequences of getting care they can't afford versus death. Because go figure in the ****ing era before life-saving triage care existed, people ****ing died. Go back a scant hundred years or so and we didn't even have ****ing antibiotics. Infections were routinely fatal. Now you can get ****ing Cipro over the counter for the change in your pocket. You can get analgesics and a whole host of medications at the ****ing gas station.

"But-but-but" people want to say like things have changed. Like we're something different than we used to be. Like we're not still bound by the laws of nature and survival of the fittest. That we're so ****ing HUMAN with our Uggs and Ipads that we should be able to just expend the precious limited medical resources we have for practically nothing, even if it results in a net loss - all to preserve the sacred human "right" to "free healthcare."

Just like I said in the discussion with GOO, that's not what insurance is designed to do.

Healthcare prices are extremely inflated.

Conjecture. The market dictates the price - AKA: Supply and Demand. The market bears what the market will bear. Market forces drive supply and demand. The government remains the controller of the Medicare Fee Sched, which reimburses many, many, many providers.

The ACA allowed millions of people to become insured which were not previously insured.

Those people do not have insurance. They have medical welfare. ACA Exchange plans are not insurance plans. They are vehicles for disbursing medical welfare that a politician working with a propaganda ministry convinced an entire country of people to call "insurance." They are insurance in name only. This is not semantics, this is reality. Do the math. Do the research. Where no risk exists or a risk is certain, there can be no insurance, because insurance (risk transfer) does not function on certainty.

If the insurance companies were too unprepared for the shift after all the discussions let them go bankrupt and allow the smarter, more responsible insurance companies thrive and expand.

You have no idea what you're talking about at this point.

[bmpnok]

False choice fallacy here. Insurance isn't for everyone. It was never intended to be for everyone. It could be for everyone, but only if everyone followed the rules. And it's not possible for everyone to follow the rules, because not everyone is capable of paying into insurance in accordance with their risk.

But the converse is not that these people are bankrupted. In all possibility, they might never have a loss. If the margin of a loss was great enough, they'd be insured, because there would be a for-profit carrier out there willing to take on that risk for a premium. But by default because a carrier cannot make a profit on these people, that is part of the reason they are excluded coverage. Because they are known losses.

For the sake of argument, we'll assume they do have a serious medical occurrence and / or disease and do not have insurance.

In that case they would need to negotiate payment terms with the provider independently. If they are not able to pay per the terms of their own negotiation, the amount would get thrown into collections. At that point, they'd need to settle the amount from there. Whether they use bankruptcy to do this or not is up to them.

But let's rewind for a little bit. If they didn't want the bill, they shouldn't have gotten the care. If they had to have the care or they would die, then they need to weigh the consequences of getting care they can't afford versus death. Because go figure in the ****ing era before life-saving triage care existed, people ****ing died. Go back a scant hundred years or so and we didn't even have ****ing antibiotics. Infections were routinely fatal. Now you can get ****ing Cipro over the counter for the change in your pocket. You can get analgesics and a whole host of medications at the ****ing gas station.

"But-but-but" people want to say like things have changed. Like we're something different than we used to be. Like we're not still bound by the laws of nature and survival of the fittest. That we're so ****ing HUMAN with our Uggs and Ipads that we should be able to just expend the precious limited medical resources we have for practically nothing, even if it results in a net loss - all to preserve the sacred human "right" to "free healthcare."

Just like I said in the discussion with GOO, that's not what insurance is designed to do.



Conjecture. The market dictates the price - AKA: Supply and Demand. The market bears what the market will bear. Market forces drive supply and demand. The government remains the controller of the Medicare Fee Sched, which reimburses many, many, many providers.



Those people do not have insurance. They have medical welfare. ACA Exchange plans are not insurance plans. They are vehicles for disbursing medical welfare that a politician working with a propaganda ministry convinced an entire country of people to call "insurance." They are insurance in name only. This is not semantics, this is reality. Do the math. Do the research. Where no risk exists or a risk is certain, there can be no insurance, because insurance (risk transfer) does not function on certainty.



You have no idea what you're talking about at this point.

Okay so your stance is that health is a privilege and you are responsible for it completely.

Please advocate for removal of public education.
Please advocate for removal of public transportation.
Please advocate for removal of any public aid.

The purpose of these programs is to sustain a healthy, productive population.

People are realizing how crappy medical care is in the US compared to other western nations if you are not able to afford it and they want it changed.
It would be a different story if we were in a poverty nation that couldn't provide healthcare to its citizens, but it isn't the case.

[nutsy54]

Lol this guy is still arguing in R/P all these years later? I wonder if blind right wingers realize they are just as biased and brain dead as the blind left wingers whos nuts they spend all day licking. Both extreme ends of the spectrum are fools and the guys all over Obamas nuts are JUST like the ones that blamed Bush for everything. Both sides are clowns and either side that becomes as passionate and set in their ideology as this guy needs help. Calm down John Wayne.

How is it an "extreme end of the spectrum" or "biased and brain dead" to state historical facts about the Obama administration?

[EctoCanuck]

How is it an "extreme end of the spectrum" or "biased and brain dead" to state historical facts about the Obama administration?

That's what I do in everyone of my threads and you have attacked me non-stop for 3 years now.


Vote Hillary 2016

[BadMonkeyFunker]

Best. Even better than clinton.

Took a mess from bushy and added millions of jobs.
Stock Market soared under his admin.
GAve equality to gays
Gave access to healthcare to millions of Americans.
Stopped risking American lives and used drones to attack our enemies.
Been tough on immigration, deported more illegals than even bush. However gave a chance to their kids to have life in this country...American dream

BEST POTUS to date...

[nutsy54]

That's what I do in everyone of my threads and you have attacked me non-stop for 3 years now.

Vote Hillary 2016

You post lies, exaggerations, and ridiculous crap from Andreas Ferrari. As I consistently prove throughout your threads and posts.

When your only reponse is a puppet picture, you've pretty much lost any credibility.

[nutsy54]

Best. Even better than clinton.

Took a mess from bushy and added millions of jobs.
Stock Market soared under his admin.
GAve equality to gays
Gave access to healthcare to millions of Americans.
Stopped risking American lives and used drones to attack our enemies.
Been tough on immigration, deported more illegals than even bush. However gave a chance to their kids to have life in this country...American dream

BEST POTUS to date...

Obama's "Stimulus" added jobs far slower than claimed. So how does he get credit for failing by his own standards?

How is Obama responsible for the stock market?

Added massive new taxes, fines, fees, and Federal debt to "give" health insurance to millions. He campaigned in opposition of a mandate, then happily signed it into law.

What did he do to "give equality to gays"? (Especially when he campaigned on the exact opposite)

How did he stop risking American lives by continuing, expanding, and starting new wars? Afghanistan casualties exploded under Obama, after he increased troop levels from 50,000 to 100,000....

[tnel00]

Jesus OP. CitizenVagrant just went hard in your ass without lube

[RIKTER]

Jesus OP. CitizenVagrant just went hard in your ass without lube

lol yes he did.

[CitizenVagrant]

Okay so your stance is that health is a privilege and you are responsible for it completely.

Please advocate for removal of public education.
Please advocate for removal of public transportation.
Please advocate for removal of any public aid.

More false choice, all-or-nothing dichotomy. Remind me what pre-existing financial interest or industry was in place when buses or public schools were implemented as a function of the State or Fed. Medicine as an industry is 1/6th of the US economy - one of the largest economies to have ever existed in the history of human civilization. And you'd like the government to chit on that? To usurp control of it? To dictate where and how those dollars are allowed to flow in what is touted as a "Capitalist" and "Free Market" economy?

The very notion of it is contrary to the principles of freedom upon which the government is founded. But go figure with freedom comes responsibility, and just as people are free to pick a doctor, or choose to engage with insurance, or find their way - they are also responsible to take care of themselves. The government taking on this responsibility also marks the government usurping this freedom, just as it has every single ****ing time a government has replicated this exact same sequence of events, give or take a few variables, throughout history.

The purpose of these programs is to sustain a healthy, productive population.

At face value. The purpose of the ACA is to usurp 1/6th of the economy by controlling the central financial mechanisms upon which it hinges. If you can't extrapolate that from the litany I've written already, then you're either a naive idealist, or willfully ignorant of the facts.

People are realizing how crappy medical care is in the US compared to other western nations if you are not able to afford it and they want it changed.

The country was sorely divided over the ACA and whether they wanted it or not, just as the country was sorely divided over this president by a narrow margin. The country remains divided - more divided than it has been in decades, if not since the Civil War. So divided that even now there is talk of secession and you have government peacekeeping forces from local LEOs all the way up to the military and national guard training to suppress and fight a civil insurgency. Not a foreign threat, a domestic one. The irony is that in ages past, these people would have been called "Patriots" or "Freedom Fighters." Now they will be known as "Domestic Terrorists," and as I have explained before, will be doomed to fail before they even begin.

Landmark grabs by the Fed like the ACA and the pitiful turnout of elections continue to remain a sign that the country has lost its will to be free. Apathy remains the hallmark of our once touted voting process. Everyone supposedly has a voice - millions have died in wars in the last 200 years to secure this privilege. Yet like cattle, the majority of the populace eligible to vote don't even engage, and suck down whatever rule is handed to them from their king. More remain blissfuly ignorant, believing what their rulers tell them, as they have been convinced by those that rule them that the people require ruling and guidance in every possible circumstance.

We have exactly the government we deserve.

The country will not be destroyed - it will merely change. But the change will not be an evolution into a higher form of human civilization. It will be a degeneration into a Machiavellian Dystopia.

[BadMonkeyFunker]

Obama's "Stimulus" added jobs far slower than claimed. So how does he get credit for failing by his own standards?

How is Obama responsible for the stock market?

Added massive new taxes, fines, fees, and Federal debt to "give" health insurance to millions. He campaigned in opposition of a mandate, then happily signed it into law.

What did he do to "give equality to gays"? (Especially when he campaigned on the exact opposite)

How did he stop risking American lives by continuing, expanding, and starting new wars? Afghanistan casualties exploded under Obama, after he increased troop levels from 50,000 to 100,000....

- Thanks for the 'neg' for stating my opinion, loser! You're like a fat annoying kid. Throwing tantrums because your mother promised you ice cream after dinner but you got it half hour late!

*Added jobs slower than claimed ? - At least he ADDED those jobs. But of course when your sole purpose is to discredit the best POTUS to date, you don't care about added jobs, it's the "speed of the progress" ... straw man arguments..

*Stock market is soaring because people are investing. Not just the Americans with new JOBS, but the whole world. It's the confidence in US markets. Compare it to the previous POTUS and see how he compares.

*Not the best system but it's a progress in the right direction. At least he did something for those of need. Unlike the previous *losers.

*He publicly talked about his approval of gay marriage. A first in US history. Influenced Public opinion and thus pushed for change. Again, he helped people get "equality" unlike the previous POTUS

*He increased in 08 when it was needed, then he dropped it to 10K today just as he promised!


He is the best POTUS compared to others. Deal with it. When you need another ass whooping come back, I'll give some more facts.

[EctoCanuck]

You post lies, exaggerations, and ridiculous crap from Andreas Ferrari. As I consistently prove throughout your threads and posts.

When your only reponse is a puppet picture, you've pretty much lost any credibility.

You call me a liar when you're the one who keeps stating there were no trillion dollar deficits until Obama became President.Than I was able to dig up this thread..........

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...#post270312141


Your own words..........

One single piece of legislation is poised to increase the national debt by nearly 10%, and that's separate from the $1.2 Trillion deficit projected for 2009!

Obama wasn't even sworn into office when you made that statement!!!So who's the liar eh?

Obama's "Stimulus" added jobs far slower than claimed. So how does he get credit for failing by his own standards?

Give us a link where Obama claims he can create more than 12,000,000 jobs because that's what he has done.

- Thanks for the 'neg' for stating my opinion, loser!

Ever time nustsy negs you send me a PM and I'll restore what you have lost.My reps are almost as strong as his negs.

I'm going to make your negs irrelevant nutsy.Just like your opinion!!!