Obama is doing a GREAT job!

Well I guess if it takes someone from overseas to do it, after so many hints, then I better start showing you how to get OUT of that recession you all seem to love. This is how God works guys and Gals. Start thinking positive!

Apart from the shill doomsayers of socialism decrying what's bad in their world life's better than it was yesterday for the overwhelming majority of us around the world. and, what hasn't Obama acheived that he said he would, given the mess he was handed?

I can't say I like the bloke, probably because he gets a lot of negative press I guess and has made mistakes. I agree with the bad driver analogy used earlier but overall imho he certainly wasn't as bad as the bloke before him.

If I was living there I'd be voting for Ron Paul, just to end that Fed rort & pull back your troops. I like those ideals. But, if RP doesn't win selection and Romney gets it then Obama seems to be the most sensible way ahead (from the choices) to me. That's how the election will go too, watch and see.

 

O is doing EXACTLY what he was elected to do - destroy America. And if he can't finish the job in one term, he WILL be elected for a second term. And if he can't finish the job in a second term, he WILL get a third term, even though, at the present, he cannot have 3 terms.

And NO ONE can stop him from doing that job.

 

He will get elected again. When you are forced to make the hard decisions it's inevitable that you will make mistakes.

 

Well Obama inherited a great big pile of doo doo. No chance of rectifying that in one term even for a superman. The world needs either Obama or Ron Paul, it sure doesn't need Ginrich or Romney.

 

I have only one concern if some one has nuclear weapons...How he can ask others country to not have that
weapons.....If they are dangerous for humanity ,Than it should be ban for all countries.

It should be justice

 

Obama is not far the best American leader, I guess he is among the worst Presidents but after Bush looks not so ridiculous

 

All he is doing is destroying the economy every day, and making it look like we are getting better day by day

 

Great news! The President has caught onto the Tea Party agenda and is now in cost cutting, efficiency planning, and smaller government mode! Check it out!

The man is a genius! All congress has to do is grant him new powers and he will a) cut through the gridlock in congress and b) shrink government. I especially love how he is going to shrink government and make it more efficient! He will take six smaller organizations and roll them up into one big one, eliminating overlapping functions and saving the taxpayers both confusion and money. And here is the real magic! He's going to do it without firing a single person! One has to absolutely love the rebranding of the words "shrink government" to mean grant the president additional powers, create big organizations out of small ones, and not fire a single person! It is pure F'n genius in an election year!

Reading the article, the man don's the mantle of Reagan, calling on congress to grant him these special powers to cut government and cut through congressional gridlock. Its Orwellian

 

Consolidation of power is always good for those on top.

 

Bullies always try to get more power.

 

I do give kudos to the obama for not allowing congress to arrest any American for "terrorist" activity without due process.

 

A president of any country is the best reflection of the kind of people they have in that country in other words, the mindset of those people at the time of the incumbency of the president. If Obama was swept into the presidency by American voters, it shows the level of political awareness the voters had about the conditions America was experiencing at the time they voted for him. And whether Obama had inherited the country's problems or if these troubles were directly caused by his administration doesn't make any difference at all as it isn't just the president that must share the burden but those who voted for him, and even those that didn't, as well..

 

You are sort of correct, but not fully. Just because a president gets elected doesn't mean that most people are in support of that candidate. Let's look at some numbers and reasons behind voting for a certain candidate. In any given election year, only about 45 to 55 percent of people actually vote for the winning candidate depending on various factors such as semi-viable third party candidates and the strength or weakness of of the other candidate, etc, etc.

Then there are other factors involved. Just because someone like Obama won doesn't mean that is representative of the whole. In this instance, several factors were at play for his election to happen. He was the first black (half black really, but in appearance) candidate on the ticket which piqued a lot of the minority vote just on that merit alone. Then you throw in that people were tired of 8 years of Bush, while others simply were tired of a Republican being in office. This drove many people over to the Democratic side no matter who was the actual nominee for that party. Others simply always vote Democrat regardless because they can't stand Republican/Conservative ideology whatsoever.

If you take all of these into account, you'll see that electing Obama had less to do with everybody loving and agreeing with everything he was "about" and more to do with other factors that had little or nothing to do with him at all. So therefor, the president isn't always, and never a full indication and reflection of the people and needs/mindset of the people living within that country.

Finally, you have to factor in that his approval can go down as he goes along. The support he enjoyed at the beginning of his term can decline substantively. Also, things change within the economy and domestically within that time period that either strengthen or weaken what that candidate is all about if they do indeed keep their campaign promises. Which brings us to the last point. Just because someone promises something, doesn't mean that's who they'll be when they get into office. So it's easy to see how a president can look/be great at the beginning of his term and horrible at the end.

 

He succeeded to avoid the popular soup lines in the street, but that was not free. Of course, people who are not aware of that blame him to spend but if it happened, they would blame him no to spend to avoid it. But let's face it, no one would be able to restore in 4 years what Bush destroyed in 8. He withdrew the troops a bit late in my opinion because just that would save a big chunk of money. The next one, if republican, will find a country and a reason to start a new war unfortunately. Iran or North Korea? who knows?
So, a good job, I don't know. The after-Bush is just too difficult and time consuming...

 

You can't say that only Republicans start wars as if ALL those running for Republican would necessarily initiate some blitzkrieg. Ron Paul, for one, would Not just start a war for no reason. He's been clear on that for decades. The only way a war would happen is if we were provoked through attack.

 

Cody is a bot that pieces together random sentences from TalkingPointsMemo.com. You are replying to a computer.

 

Ah, the epitome of the "Liberal media." (TalkingPointsMemo)

 

You're right. I meant you have the same probability to have a republican to start a war than a democrat not stating one.
Of course the context is different when provoked. The thing would be to fight the provocateur maybe. If there is a plane in the white house, hijacked by a yemenite, funded by a Saoudi, tought to fly by an egyptian, then, don't bomb Brasil...or Kenya. That's just an example of course.

The day you'll use my first language, or even my second language as I use english, that day, and we have time ahead, that day only, you can answer. Until then, you'll stay very little for the others...

 

And by that you mean "Badly"? Thanks for the clarification. I thought you were a left wing talking point spammer. The poorly written, incorrectly worded, two sentences you used to brag about your language skills put an instantaneous end to that theory.

 

My point exactly. In saying Obama is the reflection of the sentiments of America indicates precisely those factors you mentioned, i.e. distrust of Republicans etc., that drove American voters away from McCain and into Obama's welcoming arms. It's like saying that voters took him in as a lesser evil without necessarily a firm conviction about his qualities as a person and as leader of great nation..