American Politics during the Obama Presidency

You guys are going to love this. So even though the government is subsidizing my health insurance, they stubbornly refuse to give me any spending money, so I've been working part-time. I have one job where I stand there doing nothing so I figured I would get another one where I could sit there doing nothing in case I got tired of standing. So I got a job as an on-line tutor for some outfit, working Saturday and Sunday evenings.

I have now done six 5 hours shifts and I have had exactly one student. I am not really complaining but last night I was so bored, I started investigating the company. I was kinda wondering how they could make any money since they were paying me and no one seemed to be paying them. So guess who is paying them?

That's right; the [B]federal government[/B]. It seems they get federal funds to have assholes like me available to answer questions for not just high school kids but college students who are eligible under TRIO criteria (first generation college student, Native American, blah blah blah). This is Bush's brainchild: [B]"No Child Left Behind"[/B] (Jerry Sandusky misread this as "Leave No Child's Behind"). And, they have to have tutors available for all kinds of subjects whether there is really any demand for them or not. I wondered from the very beginning because they had a two-tiered pay structure and some of the classes they were paying a premium for were like Hmong and Lao and such like. And my subjects are also premium ones, and would not commonly be offered at the high school level.

So the government is paying someone to pay me to do nothing. Well, not nothing; they are paying me to watch sports and last night I created a spreadsheet to analyze the effective interest rate on credit card balance transfers. Now that I know this is the case, maybe I will sign up for some more hours. Even if I did accidentally get some students, there is no audio or camera, just a whiteboard, so I could still be watching the games. Plus this job I can take with me when I leave the country again.

The education industry is about as corrupt as the prison industry these days.

[QUOTE=HotRod11;441503]After President Obama stated that they didn't have a strategy for the isis problem I think it was interesting that people like me thought this is great, their thinking this out.

If W was the commander in chief his response would of been-- well I hadn't heard that but if its true we will invade, probably next week.[/QUOTE]Their is not a contraction of they are.

Don B.

[QUOTE=HotRod11;441503]If W was the commander in chief his response would of been...[/QUOTE]If W was the Commander in Chief, those sex-starved lunatics in the desert would never have been embolden enough to form ISIS, not to mention beheading American citizens, given that they would have known that they would have been the targets of a swift and certain destruction by the US Military.

Peace through Strength, but of course, you have to have the balls to use it.

Yea I must agree congress hasn't authouized the air war in Iraq and Syria they have too busy voting 52 times to defund Obamacare. Maybe if we had a secretary of state that would be willing to lie to the world and say Isis has weapons of mass destruction in no time we could send an ill equiped and undersized army to win this war in 6 months because they would be received as liberators. I would like to remind parents of soldiers to buy their kids bullet proof vests while there still here because like the last 6 month war the military won't have enough to go around. But heck in no time we can alienate the entire world and no one will send a suicide bomber near any of us. They will be much too scared. My goodness we all long for the good old days when we were the laughing stock of the world.

ISIS is a direct result of the Iraq invasion but the right will never admit that. Daniel Pearl was beheaded in in Pakistan and Nick berg was beheaded in Iraq while Bush and Cheney was in office touting their mighty power to the world. Irrational people do not fear politicians or militaries. North Korea continually taunted Bush the entire time he was in office and he did nothing about it. Russia invaded Georgia while Bush was in office and he did nothing about it. Russia shot down a Korean Airliner with many Americans on board and Reagan did nothing about it.

There were 11 attacks on US Embassies during the Bush years killing over 70 Americans. These attacks were from the same irrational people who were supposed to be afraid of Bush/Cheney. Bush or any conservative "war" president in command is not a deterrent nor would not put fear in the hearts of any irrational country or groups. If irrational people feared military power, 9-11 would never had occurred.

ISIS is a direct result of Obama's withdrawal of the American military after Bush's successful liberation of Iraq from a brutal dictator, but the left will never admit that.

Thanks,

Jax.

[QUOTE=Jackson;441515]ISIS is a direct result of Obama's withdrawal of the American military after Bush's successful liberation of Iraq from a brutal dictator, but the left will never admit that.

Thanks,

Jax.[/QUOTE]Wow! This is so wrong I can't quite believe that you can actually believe it! Saddam H was a brutal dictator, for sure, but everything else is nonsense. Suggest that you extend your news gathering to other sources other than Fox.

If I'm not mistaken 6 weeks before W turned the presidency over to Obama, after several years of negotiating with the Iraq government w signed an agreement with the waco in charge of Iraq A Mr Malike The agreement said all American troops must be out of Iraq by Dec 31 2011. Thats when the agreement with Iraq that they would not prosicute any US soldier for any crimes that they may commit such as shooting someone in self defense. An agreement that every country has agreed to that has US troops. My departure date may be off but I'm sure the rest is correct. When Iraq refused to extend that agreement the US had no choice but to leave.

I just looked it up and Its called the status of forces agreement. It seems that that agreement isn't the same in every country we have troops in. Some countrys have more leeway when handling an incident with a soldier. In Iraq we demanded That any us military Personal involved in any incident would be handled by the US military. Iraq wouldn't agree to it so here we are. Some of our right wingers in congress have stated that Obama didn't negotiate hard enough. Come on W signed the agreement not O. Also Senator Mccaine said there were loop holes in the agreement. Before we sent advisors back into Iraq the new president signed a new status of forces agreement. Case closed.

I just love these circular reasoning contests. Or not.

[QUOTE=Jackson;441515]ISIS is a direct result of Obama's withdrawal of the American military after Bush's successful liberation of Iraq from a brutal dictator, but the left will never admit that.

Thanks,

Jax.[/QUOTE]If ever there was a line from Hannity, that was it. Spoken with total sincerity, too.

[QUOTE=RcCollins;441511]ISIS is a direct result of the Iraq invasion but the right will never admit that.[/QUOTE]If ever there was a line from Rachael Maddow, that was it. Spoken with total sincerity, too.

[QUOTE=Jackson;441527]If ever there was a line from Rachael Maddow, that was it. Spoken with total sincerity, too.[/QUOTE]Setting your verbal gymnastics aside, the statement below is a factual conclusion no independent voter can deny. BTW, I don't watch Maddow's show so I have no idea what her lines are.

[QUOTE=RcCollins;441511]ISIS is a direct result of the Iraq invasion but the right will never admit that.[/QUOTE]

History is history, no matter who is at fault. ISIS is a very real threat, now and in the future. They are well financed and well organized. Freedom loving people the world over must unite to stop ISIS before it is too late.

Tres3.

LOL. I am now reminded why I stopped reading these threads years ago. State propaganda 101.

Remember, we were dealing with a bad Iraqi president who refused the terms of a Status of Forces Agreement with the U.S., who fostered sectarian division, and who failed to ensure strong, effective leadership in the Iraqi military. If we had kept our troops in Iraq, nothing would have changed in Iraq, ISIS would have continued growing and planning in Syria, and there would not have been a regional and global coalition to address them.

Fast forward, and all of that has changed for the better. Not without a cost, but Iraq, the region and the world had to see the threat they faced to force this change.

It's a game of chess. We can debate whether it would have been better to keep troops in Iraq indefinitely. But since then, ISIS made some bad moves and Obama made some good moves. They will be contained, especially now that the campaign has moved into Syria.

As usual, the right is once again attempting to dumb-down a complex story into a simple message: It's Obama's Fault. It works well on their LIV base, not so much on those who apply some critical thinking. Critical thinking is a threat to conservatives; Bill Clinton said as much recently, when he said "The last thing they want you to do is think. "

[URL]http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/217679-clinton-republicans-trying-to-get-you-to-check-your-brain-at[/URL]

In my lifetime its hard to choose the best president from Harry Truman to Obama. Its easy to name the worst W. I voted for papa Bush the first term. Never voted for W so you can't blame me. Truman Eisenhower and nixon were probably the most influental I mean that in a positive way. Johnson and Carter passed the best legislation. Clinton raised taxes and that put our economy in such good shape we ran surpluses. I think this will light up this site. So Ok it needs a little life.

[QUOTE][QUOTE=RcCollins;441532]Setting your verbal gymnastics aside, the statement below is a factual conclusion no independent voter can deny.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=RcCollins;441511]ISIS is a direct result of the Iraq invasion but the right will never admit that.[/quote] [/QUOTE]I'm a (registered) "independent voter" and I deny your so called "factual conclusion", I view your statement as an "argument from ignorance" because it can't be proven or disproven. I think the problem started before Bush.

[QUOTE=RcCollins;441511]Bush or any conservative "war" president in command is not a deterrent nor would not put fear in the hearts of any irrational country or groups. If irrational people feared military power, 9-11 would never had occurred.[/QUOTE][B]Obama the bomber has bombed seven countries in six years![/B]

Some of the bombings I refer to started under Bush but Obama continued them and even increased some. Apparently bombings from a Nobel Peace Prize holding president hasn't struck much fear in their hearts either.

So where do you suggest we go from here?

Punter, when W approved bombings he was trying to defeat bad guys and encourage democracy. When O approved bombings he was trying to clean up the mess W left behind.

It took our country 100 years to perfect democracy. OK this is debatable but in my opinion not until we fought a civil war did our democracy take hold. W and his cronies thought all they had to do was create a situation were citisens got to vote for their leader and that was democracy. W should of spent a little time studying history and what took place in Paris in 1917.

When W took out Hesein he removed the only force that was a balance against Iran. Hell we supported Iraq in their 8 year war with Iran. The world will be dealing with the mess W created for mucho mucho years.

Ok this is serious. If my bail bondsman comes through I will be in BA on Oct 08. I would love to meet any of you members for a beer. If the truth were known I am a well experienced rookie. Let me pick your brain for info. I have been to BA many times and I really love it. But with your knowledge and insight things would be better.

Has anyone been to the bar toward the end of Florida Street with the Alto sax player. I can't remember his name but if you walk to the end of Florida st he is on the left side standing just a little in the street. I can be found most nights in the outside cafe listening to his great music You can recognize me as I am a very handsome, slim, tall well dressed guy with girls hanging all over me.

Well OK I am short pudgy and you can recognize me being alone.

Join me for a beer.

[QUOTE=Punter127;441551]I'm a (registered) "independent voter" and I deny your so called "factual conclusion", I view your statement as an "argument from ignorance" because it can't be proven or disproven. I think the problem started before Bush.

[B]Obama the bomber has bombed seven countries in six years![/B]

Some of the bombings I refer to started under Bush but Obama continued them and even increased some. Apparently bombings from a Nobel Peace Prize holding president hasn't struck much fear in their hearts either.

So where do you suggest we go from here?[/QUOTE]You're an independent voter in the same vein as Bill O'Reilly who also regularly claims to be independent but spends his nights bashing Obama and the democrats for everything while exculpating Bush and the right on most issues. An independent would go after both sides equally unless they've reached a conclusion as to which party they prefer as you seem to have done by your postings. Which is fine BTW, but in that case you cease to be independent.

What are the chances you will vote for a democrat in the next election given that their policies will always be liberal and appear to be in direct contrast to your postings? Your countering of the factual conclusion with an opinion is so not persuasive. Prior to Bush no groups dared to operate from Iraq because of the tyrant that was running the country and that is not an opinion. You missed the point about war presidents as that was a response to the post below and not anything you wrote but your derisive labeling of Obama again eliminates any doubts as to where your allegiance lies.

As to where do we go from here, we need more independent lawmakers to take action for the good of the country domestically and internationally. The two party system is screwing the tax payers royally. Very little gets done while both sides continually blame each other while they get rich off the tax payers. A large threat to the tax payers is right under our noses, our own law makers. Specifically as it relates to ISIS or any other terrorist groups which affect all countries; its quite simple, ALL countries need to step up and participate in or support the war against these groups. The US cannot be the constables of the world, the US needs to sit one or two of these conflicts out and let the chips fall. A lot of these countries sit on their hands because they know that America will always give up its citizens to die for the cause.

Collins, there is nothing wrong with the system, the problem lies with career politicians both liberal and conservative and I use those labels lightly. They are more interested in reelection and feathering their own nests than the people's business. I don't remember the last time a poor boy got elected to Congress and did not leave a millionaire. Which raises the perfect argument for term limits, if it's good enough for the president then it's good enough for the House and Senate. At least in Texas we reduce our state legislature's mischief by limiting their ability to meet to 140 days every two years, maybe a good yardstick for Washington? Idle hands are the devil's play things.

The country elected a clown and now we have a circus; foreign policy, what foreign policy?; domestic policy. What domestic policy? ObamaCare, bears no resemblance in fact to what was promised and is about to collapse after the ruling there is no provision for subsidies under the federal program which I am sure is going to the Supremes making it the last nail in the coffin for that Frankenstein of a program.

Depending on the poll, Obama's numbers are in the high 30's or very low 40's, so we are talking Bush territory for the "Savior of American".

LOL yall talk politics with the chicas too? Who gives a shit about iraqi islamic whatevers they got pussy all over the place here.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;441559]Collins, there is nothing wrong with the system, the problem lies with career politicians both liberal and conservative and I use those labels lightly. They are more interested in reelection and feathering their own nests than the people's business. I don't remember the last time a poor boy got elected to Congress and did not leave a millionaire. Which raises the perfect argument for term limits, if it's good enough for the president then it's good enough for the House and Senate. At least in Texas we reduce our state legislature's mischief by limiting their ability to meet to 140 days every two years, maybe a good yardstick for Washington? Idle hands are the devil's play things.

The country elected a clown and now we have a circus; foreign policy, what foreign policy?; domestic policy. What domestic policy? ObamaCare, bears no resemblance in fact to what was promised and is about to collapse after the ruling there is no provision for subsidies under the federal program which I am sure is going to the Supremes making it the last nail in the coffin for that Frankenstein of a program.

Depending on the poll, Obama's numbers are in the high 30's or very low 40's, so we are talking Bush territory for the "Savior of American".[/QUOTE]Gosh that was an odd and contradictory statement! You stated that there was nothing wrong with the system then went on to list a number of problems affecting said system and even offered a solution to fix the system. The last paragraph of your post is as oxymoronic as the first but too vitriolic to respond to.

[QUOTE=HotRod11;441550]In my lifetime its hard to choose the best president from Harry Truman to Obama. Its easy to name the worst W. I voted for papa Bush the first term. Never voted for W so you can't blame me. Truman Eisenhower and nixon were probably the most influental I mean that in a positive way. Johnson and Carter passed the best legislation. Clinton raised taxes and that put our economy in such good shape we ran surpluses. I think this will light up this site. So Ok it needs a little life.[/QUOTE]I believe the Clinton surpluses were a result of counting social security / medicare revenues in the general budget. Another key factor was going to short term financing for our national debt. That change is going to hurt the US greatly at exactly the wrong time in the next few years. Clinton also oversaw the repeal of Glass Steagal Act and that has lead to the financial chaos of the last few years.

For me, Nixon and Obama are clearly the worst two Presidents during my lifetime. I never thought anyone could challenge Nixon's record of economic incompetence, but Obama is catching up and I think he can pull it off in two more years.

Best President for me would probably be a choice between Eisenhower and Kennedy.

If anyone wants to see a competent leader, look at John Key of New Zealand. That country has gone through the GFC, two major earthquakes in its 3rd largest city and their current bickering is over how to spend the projected surplus and why their currency and housing prices are too high.

[QUOTE=Esten;441541] Bill Clinton said as much recently, when he said "The last thing they want you to do is think. "

[URL]http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/217679-clinton-republicans-trying-to-get-you-to-check-your-brain-at[/URL][/QUOTE]Bill Clinton says something at a fundraiser and you are trying to present that as his real position? Everyone with a functioning brain cell knows that what is said at fundraisers is red meat for the target audience. With Clinton, you will need him to clearly define what each word means. Because, after all, it depends on how you define "is".

[QUOTE=RcCollins;441565]Gosh that was an odd and contradictory statement! You stated that there was nothing wrong with the system then went on to list a number of problems affecting said system and even offered a solution to fix the system. The last paragraph of your post is as oxymoronic as the first but too vitriolic to respond to.[/QUOTE]Nothing odd or contradictory about it at all. Please follow along, I'll use little words for you.

We have a representative republic form of government, not a problem there as it is in my opinion the best option currently available.

The problem comes with the rise of career politicians and inherent conflicts of self interest vs public interest. Career politicians were not foreseen by the founding fathers when these documents were drafted, they foresaw people would serve their term then return to their "day jobs" after their term was over. Can you follow along so far?

The examples presented were suggestions to fix the current form of government making it more effective in its delivery of services to the electorate.

When Congress passed the 22nd Amendment to limit presidential terms in office it was not considered "odd or contradictory". Perhaps you disagree?

Regarding the reference to Obamacare, Obama's trademark legislative accomplishment, Obama's lack of foreign or domestic policy and Obama's poll numbers, as those poll numbers support the majority of the nation agrees the preceding are a disaster, if in your opinion this represents being oxymoronic and vitriolic then please feel free to stick your head back in the sand and don't look up again until after the mid-terms or possibility November 2016.

Regarding the worst presidents of my lifetime it would have to be Carter, Obama and Nixon in that order. Of course Carter is loving Obama as he will probably replace Carter at the very bottom of the list.

[QUOTE=Dccpa;441486]I think Republicans already have a strategy. It is called we are not Obama. [/QUOTE]

[b][size=3]LOL ![/size][/b]

In other words, another strategy based on emotion.

I have made a few comments on this site. Most of you may not recognize that I am a social liberal but a fiscal conservative. I demand that my congresional representative spend my tax revenue wisely. No one can disagree with that. Also I think we need to refresh and update our infrastructure. The benefits from working on our infastructure are gigantic. Putting people to work increases our tax revenue. Also, even though we spent. Off budget. A trillion dollars fighting a war in Iraq, we must never loose site that our military must be the best trained with the most advanced equipment available. Bad things will happen if we loose site of this. I can't remember his exact words but Eisenhower warned us that the military equipment providers were a future problem. Wow, how do we balance a need for superior military equipment with the understanding that equipment providers have always and will always try to rip us off.

Most people have a great deal of respect for former defense secretary Gates. I just wonder if Mr Gates has rested enough and ready for another challenge and become the head of a new cabinet post. Head of government military procurement. Military procurement represents a huge chunk of the military budget.

OK so again I'm just babbling. I'm sure the retired english teachers will have a field day with this and of course the scalars in our group are licking there chops. Just think about it.

[QUOTE=RcCollins;441558]You're an independent voter in the same vein as Bill O'Reilly who also regularly claims to be independent but spends his nights bashing Obama and the democrats for everything while exculpating Bush and the right on most issues. An independent would go after both sides equally unless they've reached a conclusion as to which party they prefer as you seem to have done by your postings. Which is fine BTW, but in that case you cease to be independent.[/QUOTE]I know it's a hard pill for progressives to swallow but you and your ilk (yes that means you Rev BS) do not get to decide who is and who is not an independent voter. We are a free country and as such we all get to decide for ourselves what our political alliances will be, and we have the freedom to change our alliances at any time. Furthermore an independent does not have to "go after both sides equally" they have the freedom to speak out selectively. Sorry but independents also do not have to meet your self serving definition of being an independent, you simply don't get a say in the matter other than for yourself. End of story.

[QUOTE=RcCollins;441558]What are the chances you will vote for a democrat in the next election given that their policies will always be liberal and appear to be in direct contrast to your postings? Your countering of the factual conclusion with an opinion is so not persuasive. Prior to Bush no groups dared to operate from Iraq because of the tyrant that was running the country and that is not an opinion. You missed the point about war presidents as that was a response to the post below and not anything you wrote but your derisive labeling of Obama again eliminates any doubts as to where your allegiance lies.[/QUOTE]The chances of me voting for a Democrat are slim to none, but I do not accept that their policies are and always will be "liberal". In fact I don't think todays Democrat party is "liberal" at all, it's progressive totalitarian (aka: nannyism) and that's a far cry from being "liberal". Show me a Democrat that meets the following definitions of "liberal" and I'll consider voting for them.

1. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.

2. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

3. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression.

4. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.

5. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant:

Individual freedom or rights, get it?

Your claim that ISIS is a direct result of the Iraq invasion is so not persuasive. ISIS is a spin off of al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda is a global militant Islamist organization founded by Osama bin Laden, Abdullah Azzam, and several other militants, al-Qaeda formed long before the US invaded Iraq. Using your way of thinking one might say ISIS is a direct result of the killing of Osama bin Laden. Both claims are absurd if you ask me. Even if ISIS wasn't in Iraq it wouldn't prove they would not be in some other country such as syria.

If your conclusion was correct (which it's not) you act as if Bush got us in the Iraq war all by himself, do I need to remind you that Bush had bipartisan support for going into Iraq. And "Congress had many months to investigate and debate the administration's claims that Iraq was a threat as well as the likely implications of a US invasion. Members of Congress also fully recognized that the resolution authorized a full-scale invasion of a sovereign nation and a subsequent military occupation of an indefinite period. ".

[B]Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Dianne Feinstein, and Chuck Schumer [/B]just to name a few Democrats who voted for the Iraq Resolution authorizing military action against Iraq.

[QUOTE=RcCollins;441558]As to where do we go from here, we need more independent lawmakers to take action for the good of the country domestically and internationally. The two party system is screwing the tax payers royally. Very little gets done while both sides continually blame each other while they get rich off the tax payers. A large threat to the tax payers is right under our noses, our own law makers. Specifically as it relates to ISIS or any other terrorist groups which affect all countries; its quite simple, ALL countries need to step up and participate in or support the war against these groups. The US cannot be the constables of the world, the US needs to sit one or two of these conflicts out and let the chips fall. A lot of these countries sit on their hands because they know that America will always give up its citizens to die for the cause.[/QUOTE]Are you suggesting a single party system? We don't have a two party system per se, we have a system that two parties dominate, but the system is not limited. FYI, I didn't vote for Obama or Romney in the last election, but I did vote. I pretty much agree with the rest of what you say here, but we might not agree on what's good for the country.

As usual, steam emanating from your head and vaporizing into thin air.

[B]Why so angry?[/B]

[QUOTE=RevBS;441598]As usual, steam emanating from your head and vaporizing into thin air.[/QUOTE]I just call it the way I see it.

I have an opinion, and you have yours, remember?

Are you could circle the wagons again, up to you.

Anyway I'm ROFLMAO.

[QUOTE=Punter127;441596]I know it's a hard pill for progressives to swallow but you and your ilk (yes that means you Rev BS) do not get to decide who is and who is not an independent voter. [/QUOTE]By the process of deduction reasoning, a reasonable and impartial trier of fact would reach the conclusion that you are not independent. If any other poster was here consistently bashing the right the way you do to the left, say that the chances they would vote for a republican is slim to none, then claim to be independent, you and your fan club would similarly draw the same conclusion. You can venture down the semantical road as politicians love to do but at that point the conversation becomes useless.

The Iraq war has been debated enough so I'll skip that as we won't change each other's view on that topic. I will maintain what I wrote and will say that people voted for that war based on the intentionally inaccurate information and "faulty intelligence" that was presented to them. Flip the script where a democratic president did what Bush did and the right would also claim ex post facto that their vote was based on the faulty intelligence presented to them and therefore not responsible for it.
and
[QUOTE=Punter127;441596] Both claims are absurd if you ask me [/QUOTE]I didn't ask you but its now becoming an argument which won't accomplish anything so I'll maintain what I wrote and am sure you'll do the same.

As it relates to the worst presidents in our history, Bush has to be at the top of the list. On his watch, over 3000 Americans were needlessly killed as a result of the ineptitude of his administration not sharing intelligence and not following up on intelligence leads despite being warned on multiple occasions about the suspicious behaviors of the 9-11 killers. The inept manner in which they governed the Iraq war costing countless Americans lives which drew the ire of both parties. An embarrassingly incompetent Defense Secretary being forced to resign after members of his own party called for it because of his poor management of the aforementioned war. Bush's Katrina debacle and his extreme economic failings, put it all together and he is the top candidate for worst president. If a democratic president did what Bush did the right would use every bit of those instances to make the same point.

[QUOTE=Punter127;441599][B]Why so angry?[/B]

I just call it the way I see it.

I have an opinion, and you have yours, remember?

Are you could circle the wagons again, up to you.

Anyway I'm ROFLMAO.[/QUOTE]Hardly! I just have fun on AP. You think I am serious about all this? And all because I gave kudos to RC Collins, so silly. I am getting worried about you.

For sheer ineffectiveness: Carter. Maybe nice guys really do finish last.

For pure evil: Nixon. When Nixon was re-elected in 1972 (also the year I fucked my first hooker), I knew I was living with some stupid people.

For sheer stupidity and cluelessness: Bush II. Not too impressed with my fellow citizens for re-electing him after there were no weapons of mass destruction.

Now as far as the best, there is not a lot to choose from but I choose Clinton because things went pretty smoothly under him. The president gets too much credit when things go well and too much blame when they go astray.

I am also a social liberal and fiscal conservative and I would also add that I favor a largely isolationist foreign policy. I really don't care how many diaper heads kill each other in the name of religion. Oh yeah, and despite being (mostly) a social liberal, anyone who's in the country illegally, kick their asses out and if they sneak back in, shoot them. Just call it an extension of my isolationist policy.

The one statistic Esten can't spin.

[URL]http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-03/labor-participation-rate-drops-36-year-low-record-926-million-americans-not-labor-fo[/URL]

Obama has taken forward to the past.

"the collapse in the labor force participation rate, which in September slid from an already three decade low 62.8% to 62.7% - the lowest in over 36 years, matching the February 1978 lows. And while according to the Household Survey, 232,000 people found jobs, what is more disturbing is that the people not in the labor force, rose to a new record high, increasing by 315,000 to 92.6 million!

[URL]http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2014/09/participation%20rate%20sept%202014_0.jpg[/URL]

The labor force participation rate, peaked. Notice that about 70-80% of the decline in the labor force participation rate has happened under BO's Presidency.

248,000 jobs created in September, and a 69,000 jobs upward revision for July and August. As a chief economist at RBC Global Asset Management said today, [I]"This is a very muscular report. Its showing powerful job creation, no matter how one cares to slice it."[/I]. Once again, more evidence that Republicans lied to the American people when they said the Affordable Care Act would be a big jobs killer.

Does Obama get the credit? Partly. But most of it is simply because we have a fundamentally private-sector driven capitalist economy. The structure of the U.S. economy hasn't changed significantly because of anything Obama did.

Wet blanket Republicans will continue trying to make things sound bad anyway they can, like Dccpa posting about the LFPR. I wonder if he can explain why the decline in LFPR is a bad thing (which he seems to imply), and what the underlying causes are.

This is an excellent jobs report, and a milestone to have brought the unemployment rate back into the 5's. All Americans should see this as a good thing.

[URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/03/hiring-rebounds-in-september-unemployment-rate-falls-to-5-9-percent/[/URL]

[QUOTE=RcCollins;441600]By the process of deduction reasoning, a reasonable and impartial trier of fact would reach the conclusion that you are not independent.[/QUOTE]You just don't get it do you? I have declared myself as an independent, I have meet the legal requirements of being an independent and my home state has recognized me as an independent. That trumps your bullshit "process of deduction reasoning" and leaves it inconsequential. So you can scream your meaningless opinion from the fucking roof tops if you like, but at the end of the day I'll still be an independent, like it or not.

[QUOTE=RcCollins;441600]The Iraq war has been debated enough so I'll skip that as we won't change each other's view on that topic.[/QUOTE]OK works for me.

[QUOTE=RcCollins;441600]I will maintain what I wrote and will say that people voted for that war based on the intentionally inaccurate information and "faulty intelligence" that was presented to them. Flip the script where a democratic president did what Bush did and the right would also claim ex post facto that their vote was based on the faulty intelligence presented to them and therefore not responsible for it.[/QUOTE]I will repeat myself "Congress had many months to investigate and debate the administration's claims that Iraq was a threat as well as the likely implications of a US invasion. Members of Congress also fully recognized that the resolution authorized a full-scale invasion of a sovereign nation and a subsequent military occupation of an indefinite period. " It's Congress job to investigate the facts before authorizing military action or war. Congress is the only branch with the power to declare war, the president can only request that they do so. I'm not giving them a pass for for failing to perform their duties just because there Democrats, as apparently you do. If Bush did something illegal why hasn't he been prosecuted? Without said prosecution your argument is trivial and hackneyed.

[QUOTE=Punter127;441617]You just don't get it do you? I have declared myself as an independent, I have meet the legal requirements of being an independent and my home state has recognized me as an independent. That trumps your bullshit "process of deduction reasoning" and leaves it inconsequential. So you can scream your meaningless opinion from the fucking roof tops if you like, but at the end of the day I'll still be an independent, like it or not.[/QUOTE]Say RcCollins, the man is right. He is a force unto himself. Reminds me of the guy I met on the subway who told me he was Juan Peron. And he was!!! He even show me his ID.