Moonlight Graham Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) On Jan. 20, 2009, Barack Hussein Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. That makes it 3 years in office for him. How would you grade his job as President thus far? Of course, please try to provide some explanation of your grade. My Grade: B- Pros: - Got most US forces out of Iraq - Got Bin Laden (though can't give him all, or even most, of the credit for that) - At least kind of tried to close Gitmo - Finally got a health care reform bill passed into law - Avoided a US economic depression - Economy aside, has been fairly effective at avoiding massive blunders, in contrast to his predecessor. - has avoided worldwide nuclear apocalypse. hurray! - Supported repealing "don't ask, don't tell" Cons: - the economy still sucks, & his efforts to fix it have been sub-par at best - has handled the US debt issue poorly - Afghanistan is still a ridiculous stalemate and mostly a waste of time. Should just leave. - Same old imperialistic b.s. US foreign policy as the last 60+ years - little to no effort on campaign/party finance & lobbying/special interest reform - handled BP oil spill poorly - is a bit of a wimp & a sellout (especially domestically), often trying appease everyone instead of having the balls to stand up for what's right - is a typical Washington piece of turd (see above) - Washington still functions like crapola, though certainly not all his fault. - Gitmo still open - i'm sure there's more but it would take forever to type LOL Edited January 24, 2012 by Moonlight Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) The US departure from Iraq was negotiated to occur at the end of 2011 by the Bush administration, and President Obama failed to get an extension over the issue of legal immunity for troops. As for your other dubious observations, insulting notes from the non-voting peanut gallery in Canada are not considered a presidential report card....but re-election in 2012 is. Edited January 23, 2012 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) Your 'cons' list is almost twice as long as your 'pro' list and you give hime a B? And just in general, a B grade when you look at his three years, you might as well just give him an A for effort. I would not. On the pro side, getting the troops out is not the question, it's whether the effort was a success. For instance they got the troops out of Viet Nam, but Nam was a huge mess. Obama's part in the effort was limited however. Bin Laden, I agree on that. He doesn't get anything for Gitmo because his results are zero. Trying to close it and trying to get terrorists into civil court is a big zero. The health care bill is a huge question mark. How can putting a monstrous new debt on the backs of the taxpayers be ignored? Will it work? Several courts have called it unconstitutional, so it remains to be seen if it even passes muster in the legal realm. The economy is another fail. Three years and no success equals fail. He spent trillions and 41% more people are now using food stamps. 16% are below the poverty line. The job outlook is just now finally starting to improve, though it remains to be seen if it carrys into the traditionally tough months of Jan/Feb. But claiming he kept the US out of depression is dubious. Greece stayed out of depression, so the US should have been able to do much better than that. They didn't. On the 'avoiding massive blunders' front, he bowed to the leaders in China and Saudi Arabia. He has been smoother than Bush, but has spent multiple times more with nothing to show for it. His efforts on the ME are below average. He had oodles of good will going in and I think it's been a real steep learning curve as he'd never run a state or business before. He appointments have been controversial and ideology based many times. He spends far too much time holidaying and golfing, much more than Bush did, and it does not look good. I'd give him a D. Lost his majority in Congress when he had so much good will at the start. Edited January 23, 2012 by sharkman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 As for your other dubious observations, notes from the non-voting peanut gallery in Canada are not considered a presidential report card doesn't your pony have more than one trick? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 And what's your grade, waldo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 edited: to remove gratuitous and false claims concerning Obama's vacation and golfing... whaaa! I wasn't quick enough to grab your unedited version... So far, President Obama has taken 61 vacation days after 31 months in office. At this point in their presidencies, George W. Bush had spent 180 days at his ranch where his staff often joined him for meetings. And Ronald Reagan had taken 112 vacation days at his ranch.Among recent presidents, Bill Clinton took the least time off -- 28 days. To be fair, a presidential vacation away from the White House is not the same as a vacation for the average person. The president is still in contact with his advisers and on call for any emergency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted January 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) Your 'cons' list is almost twice as long as your 'pro' list and you give hime a B? And just in general, a B grade when you look at his three years, you might as well just give him an A for effort. I would not. I made the grade before I wrote the list. You're right, I re-evaluated and change it to a "C". On the 'avoiding massive blunders' front, he bowed to the leaders in China and Saudi Arabia. Above would be a blunder, not a massive blunder. Did anyone die as a result? Edited January 23, 2012 by Moonlight Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 doesn't your pony have more than one trick? Yes...it can spot Canadian intellectual prowess from a mile away with subtle clues such as "wimp", "sellout" and "turd". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 The job outlook is just now finally starting to improve, though it remains to be seen if it carrys into the traditionally tough months of Jan/Feb. apparently... Obama inherited a shyte-load from Bush... apparently, I hear tell, there was some kinda recession going on... apparently, Obama faces (one of) the most obstructionist GOP led, Tea Party driven Congressional House evah - see GOP... the party of 'NO'! Unemployment Rate, Jobs Added Since 'Great Recession' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 Obama Administration’s Achievements (Thus Far) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 Yes...it can spot Canadian intellectual prowess from a mile away with subtle clues such as "wimp", "sellout" and "turd". your prowess is wasted in this thread - why don't you take your ultra-sensitivities and failed self-confidence issues and go start another heeelarious counter thread to the "Why Are Americans So Fat - American Obesity Epidemic" thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 your prowess is wasted in this thread - why don't you take your ultra-sensitivities and failed self-confidence issues and go start another heeelarious counter thread to the "Why Are Americans So Fat - American Obesity Epidemic" thread. I would do just that, but I wouldn't want to be blamed for an even higher Canadian suicide rate. For now, I am satisfied to contemplate how less sensitive Canadians would react to implications that your head of state was a royal "turd". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 I made the grade before I wrote the list. You're right, I re-evaluated and change it to a "C". Above would be a blunder, not a massive blunder. Did anyone die as a result? No, but to signal to the world that you are not the equal of these leaders is a bigger deal to me I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 No, but to signal to the world that you are not the equal of these leaders is a bigger deal to me I guess. Why? What difference does it make in matters of state? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) apparently... Obama inherited a shyte-load from Bush... apparently, I hear tell, there was some kinda recession going on... apparently, Obama faces (one of) the most obstructionist GOP led, Tea Party driven Congressional House evah - see GOP... the party of 'NO'! Unemployment Rate, Jobs Added Since 'Great Recession' Wait a minute. Just how did Obama get that contary congress, hmm? Anyone? Anyone? The fact is he started out with a majority in congress and had it for 2 years. He's only had a minority for one, and with all of the outrage expressed by dems you'd think they didn't piss away this majority and it's their own fault. Edit: could you provide a link for you info on the vacations? Edited January 23, 2012 by sharkman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 ... and 41% more people are now using food stamps. beauty... right out of the Gingrich talking points: notwithstanding that 'Great Recession' thingee... Factcheck.org: Newt Gingrich claims that “more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.” He’s wrong. More were added under Bush than under Obama, according to the most recent figures.The former speaker made that claim Jan. 16 in a Republican debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C., and his campaign organization quickly inserted the snippet in a new 30-second TV ad that began running Jan. 18 in South Carolina. Gingrich would have been correct to say the number now on food aid is historically high. The number stood at 46,224,722 persons as of October, the most recent month on record. And it’s also true that the number has risen sharply since Obama took office. But Gingrich goes too far to say Obama has put more on the rolls than other presidents. We asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition service for month-by-month figures going back to January 2001. And they show that under President George W. Bush the number of recipients rose by nearly 14.7 million. Nothing before comes close to that. And under Obama, the increase so far has been 14.2 million. To be exact, the program has so far grown by 444,574 fewer recipients during Obama’s time in office than during Bush’s. It’s possible that when the figures for January 2012 are available they will show that the gain under Obama has matched or exceeded the gain under Bush. But not if the short-term trend continues. The number getting food stamps declined by 43,528 in October. And the economy has improved since then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 Wait a minute. Just how did Obama get that contary congress, hmm? Anyone? Anyone? it's called a sheepish, reactionary, unthinking response to TeaParty propaganda The fact is he started out with a majority in congress and had it for 2 years. He's only had a minority for one, and with all of the outrage expressed by dems you'd think they didn't piss away this majority and it's their own fault. 2 things: Obama actually thought he might try the non-partisan route and attempt to actually work with Republicans... what a concept! Additionally, see failed Senate filibuster "rules". Edit: could you provide a link for you info on the vacations? it's called google... you should try it sometime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 it's called google... you should try it sometime. Yes...that's American too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted January 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 Yes...it can spot Canadian intellectual prowess from a mile away with subtle clues such as "wimp", "sellout" and "turd". I've had enough of you. Apparently the "ignore" feature doesn't block your trolling comments that are quoted from others. Just because your real life sucks doesn't give you the right to come on here and take it out on me and many others. I have finally decided to report you to the mods. IMO you should either be forced to cut the constant abusive trolling nonsense or be banned. I will not cease my efforts until one of these is achieved, and will start a petition if need be. I'm confident I could acquire many eager MLW signatures. I look forward to not reading your response. Amen "ignore" feature! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 I would do just that, but I wouldn't want to be blamed for an even higher Canadian suicide rate. yes - it truly must have been shattering to your ultra-sensitivities to have your suicide claims squashed by both cybercoma and myself. But please, please... start another juvenile thread to showcase your "prowess" - humour at your expense is gold, real gold! For now, I am satisfied to contemplate how less sensitive Canadians would react to implications that your head of state was a royal "turd". implications??? Is there... more... from you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 ^^ x2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 ^^ x2 So far all of your comments have been nothing but reactionary. I'm still waiting to see what your grade is and why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 He doesn't get anything for Gitmo because his results are zero. Trying to close it and trying to get terrorists into civil court is a big zero. amongst an assortment of reasons, principally: The responsibility lies not so much with the White House but with Congress, which has thwarted President Barack Obama’s plans to close the detention center, which the Bush administration opened on Jan. 11, 2002, with 20 captives.Congress has used its spending oversight authority both to forbid the White House from financing trials of Guantánamo captives on U.S. soil and to block the acquisition of a state prison in Illinois to hold captives currently held in Cuba who would not be put on trial — a sort of Guantánamo North. The latest defense bill adopted by Congress moved to mandate military detention for most future al Qaida cases. The White House withdrew a veto threat on the eve of passage, and then Obama signed it into law with a “signing statement” that suggested he could lawfully ignore it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) Copying and pasting paragraphs without a link is kind of pointless. I give you a D as well Waldo, you can't even come up with your own grade and reasons for Obama and are content to spout leftwing talking points. Anyone can do that. And read more carefully, I never claimed that Obama had put more Americans on food stamps than any other president. Surely you can do better than the lazy strawman argument? Edited January 23, 2012 by sharkman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 Copying and pasting paragraphs without a link is kind of pointless. I give you a D as well Waldo, you can't even come up with your own grade and reasons for Obama and are content to spout leftwing talking points. Anyone can do that. no - what's pointless is you continually making unsubstantiated claims about Obama... you're just ticked when someone takes the time to show their baseless foundations. Would you like me to assign you a grade for your many times failed claims? You played your junkyard dog act a while back when I refused to acknowledge your questions that bore no relationship or association to the respective thread. In this case I can't be bothered to acknowledge you and could care less whether you keep barking on forever about a missing grade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.