How Bad Is Barack Obama As President When A "Lying, Murdering, Alcoholic, Racist, Warmongering" Ex-President Is More Popular in Than He Is?

Sorry. The smug little bastard is not worth p_ssing on if he were on fire. I knwo i will never get my wish, but I do hope to see this pig go on trial before I die. And Cheney? I lack a twisted enough mind to come up with a proper punishment for that animal.

3 - Bush does not deserve respect for causing thousands of young people to die needlessly in a war he admits was wrong. How would being a former president justify that I am supposed to respect him when he did not respect the life of my nephew that was lost or sent others to a place they really did not want to go - but had few other options because there are few solid forms of gainful employment.

Mr. Bush does not respect the American people. I do not respect him. I respect our current president by office only - his actions have not been equal to the greatest national leader the U.S. ever had. FDR cared about citizens above and beyond what all other presidents did in the history of our nation. Theodore Roosevelt was passionate about his duty as well. Men are rarely cut from this cloth any longer.

he did what he did because he believed he was doing the right thing

... and I have some swamp land for sale for you to buy.

Is that what my post says? Do you see those words in it? Forgive me. I just don't think that's funny at all and is not what I said, so don't put a racist spin on it - and no I will not chill. So don't ask me to.

Tired of these very serious problems in the U.S. always fun & games to some that choose to not take life seriously - and is why we are in the distressed state of the union today.

Sargeant's Mom:

If that's all you have to do, is pick up trifles, then I feel very sorry for you. The President said Veteran's Day on the 10th because he would not be there on the 11th!!

Get a grip!!!

4.3 - Not a trifle when you are the leader of the most powerful nation in the free world - you get a grip on what the qualifications are for that position. One that has a true heart to serve in the office's capacity will evidence that in his or her actions. And if he doesn't know what day it is...well...

could be Alzheimer's, I suppose.

I am very grounded. No need to grip anything further in your post. But, maybe you need to take your own advice?

That is all you got, should we judge everyone on such pettiness or should we take a more measured response to performance and what is important in the world. Player...omg...classic...

4.5 - well, what exactly are you looking for, here?

Pettiness? No. If he were a citizen, I would overlook such nonsense. Because that is not a citizen's job. But it is a part of the job as Commander-in-Chief to know what days national holidays fall on - especially for the Armed Forces, right?

I am rather classic and cultured. Thank you for the compliment.

Sorry it is hard to see past tthe trivialities. With terrorism, the economy, failed wars, energy crisis, oil spills, unemployment, political instability in the middle east, education, troop withdrawals, healthcare, bi-partisan efforts in the house and who knows what else that could be judged thank goodness you pointed out the big stuff...yes you are classic and yes you are welcome for pointing out that by such actions we can call people players. Last week I said I was going away for Christmas but I meant New year...yeay...By such utterances people can assume my worth? Most people would look for more.

4.7 - solely your issue to repeatedly raise it - sorry.

I really have nothing further to say about it and ended with my first comment - simply defending my free speech at this point.

I have written extensively on the major issues. But you didn't read them - so I threw them out. I live ONLY to write for you.

(Disclaimer: I cannot possibly be more sarcastic than that above.)

And I thank you for making this a truly miserable communication experience that I will never forget. Added to the ignore list.

Defend away...it is highly amusing.

4.9 - Therapy awaits your call.

He was speaking in South Korea and it was Nov. 11th there when he was speaking to them. I can't believe I'm defending Obama but in this case he was right.

Sergeant's Mom:

Er.

What Cornhusker said.

International Date Line and all.

Silly, Silly man.

See JastuSama's link on #7

Sorry, I was asking for your support. You wrote this article, apparently before knowing about that link. So even if it supports your theory, which it doesn't, it can't be your reason for writing this article.

oh, and the ass-whipping Obama just took last Tuesday

That's strange, I didn't think presidential elections were for another two years. Strange how you're blaming the Congressional loss on Obama despite his own approval ratings staying solid for the last year. You realize that makes no sense, right?

So no. I'm not letting you budge on this one. Your claim is that Bush is more popular than Obama. You can't point to the poll that shows Obama with a 1-point lead for your victory, and you can't point to the low Congressional approval ratings. Bush. Obama. Compare and cite. Let's see you back this up.

Sorry Steve, but say what you will, the elections last last Tuesday were a direct result of people's rejection of Obama and his policies that all the losers voted for.

You can claim that, Luke, but it doesn't back up your thesis. You're comparing Bush and Obama. You have to use 1:1 data. That means you have to compare Obama's approval ratings to Bush's approval ratings. If you want to use Congress, that's fine, but you have to compare Bush's 2006 Congress (who were ousted) to Obama's 2010 Congress (who were ousted). Hint: Congress' approval ratings were lower under Bush too.

Even the poll JatsuSamalinked favors Bush if you take the margin of error into account.

You really don't know how margins of error work, do you?

A margin of error doesn't mean you just get to add 4 points to one person and not the other. That's now how comparative statistics work. If the poll has a 4-point margin of error, then the error factor has to be applied across the board. That means if it's off for Bush by 4 points, it's also off for Obama by 4 points. Or three points, or two points, or whatever. So if Bush raises from 44 to 48, Obama raises from 45 to 49. That's how margins of error work.

Still waiting for you to cite any data that actually supports your point.

You're insulting my education when you think you can arbitrarily add 4 points to Bush while leaving Obama's alone, and cite it as "margin of error"? Luke, I'm trying to have an adult conversation with you, but there's no sugar-coating this: that is idiotic. I mean poop-slinging, pants-on-head, flat-out bumblebrained dumb.

At its core level, a margin of error means that since the entire population wasn't polled, we might be a little off here or there. You can question the statistics authenticity as a whole, but you can't assume specific spots of the poll that were off for political expedience. It just doesn't work that way. You can't just assume that it must've been wrong about Bush, but right about Obama, and apply the points accordingly. That isn't how statistics or margins of error work in any way.

Think about it this way. Using the logic you're applying, someone could add the four points to Obama's total, and claim a 5 point victory for Obama (49-44). Hell, why stop there. Let's add four points to Obama's, and subtract 4 points from Bush's (49-40). Then he's got nearly a 10% advantage over Bush! It's so fun to arbitrarily use a margin of error to twist the data as we like it.

Does that sound stupid to you? Exactly.

That's what "margin of error" means Steve Watts. It means it could go either or any way by four points, for either side...thanks for playing though...

So then, you're admitting that you can't make this claim:

Even the poll JatsuSamalinked favors Bush if you take the margin of error into account.

I know it could go either way. But you used the margin of error to claim a definitive victory for Bush, which makes no damned sense whatsoever. Good to see you're coming around.

Since you concede that it could go either way, we have to go by the statistics as provided instead of making false extrapolations to serve our own purposes. That puts Obama ahead by a point. Are you ready to provide that evidence that Bush is more popular yet? I'm still waiting.

I'm sorry, Luke, but you'll have to do better than that. If you follow that poll back to its source, you can plainly see it's a push poll accenting the strength of the Tea Party and backed by Rasmussen. I tend to distrust polls that state their political goals so blatantly up-front. Heck, the actual statistic comparing Bush and Obama doesn't even provide polling data, it's just a bullet point in sentence form.

Maybe I should've been more specific: show me a reputable poll. Reputable enough, at least, to be on par with the Gallup poll that shows Obama ahead by a point, and the various polls showing Obama's approval rating higher now than Bush's were when he left office.

Barack Obama

– Despite voters feelings toward Obama personally, 56% say he does not deserve to be reelected, while 38% say he does deserve to be reelected President.

– 43% say that Barack Obama has been a better president than George W. Bush, while 48% say Bush was a better president than Obama has been.

– 42% approve of the way Obama is performing his job as president, while 57% disapprove. Similarly, 43% approve of President Obama's handling of the economy, while 55% disapprove

Some fascinating numbers from longtime Democratic pollster Doug Schoen (via U.S. News & World Report). Among them: Voters prefer Bush over Obama, want the GOP to control congress, favor extending all the Bush tax cuts, don't favor another term for Obama and would give Palin nearly 20 percent of the vote if she ran as a third-party presidential candidate.

So, it's a poll conducted by a moderate democrat.

As of today, it's back down to 44%, with 48% disapproval.

Does thay mean 44% is higher than 22%? No.

Not unless you're using "new math". I was simply pointing out that Andrew's figure was outdated.

Oh but relatively unchanged? Okay.

3 points in as many days...okay.

Explains quite a bit, though.

Psych-Evals for all elected officials: Wipe out the Tea Party and the GOP in one fell swoop.

This is more a critique of the average American's warped perceptions and not an indicator of a president's effectiveness.

Bush is the laughing stock of the World, Obama merely a redneck punchline. Big difference!

Luke:

Keep spinning things to coincide with your narrow views. It's OK. We have come to expect little else.

Things are generally more complex than you or yours would like to admit.

Now that you goons have the congress, it will be interesting to see how much gets done!

Now that you have to sidle up to the trough with the rest of us and take a big bite of the sh!^ sandwich that the previous administration has left as their legacy.

Hope you enjoy it, buddy.

Now that you goons have the congress, it will be interesting to see how much gets done!

Umm, no. We have the House, but not the Senate. And we don't have the White House. So we have just enough power to keep Obama and his cohorts from ramming any more crappy legislation down our throats, but not enough to make any changes. For that we'll have to wait two more years.

Prppf of marxism?

After two years Bush's approval rating-78%,Obama's 47%.

Would this be a bad time to bring up the fact that this had more to do with the country coming together after 9/11 instead of what that sneaky little warmongering weasel was planning with Cheney behind the scenes?

Yes but then you would have to compare oranges with oranges.

So what you're trying to say is that in your humble opinion, anyone who agrees with your views is smart, and anyone who disagrees must be "absurdly obtuse" and "stuck in stupid".

Way to denigrate half the population there, buddy.

I have not shared the depth and breadth of my views which are wide-ranging, complex and (most importantly) off-topic. Further, I could give a hoot whether anyone agrees with me or not. I simply gave the logical reason for any favorable perspective on Bush relative to Obama - stunning stupidity. If half the population believes that a President and an Administration that:

1. Lied us into the invasion of a country that didn't attack us
2. Trashed civil liberties
3. Tortured prisoners
4. Presided over the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression
5. Presided over near economic armageddon on a global scale
6. Turned over the entire regulatory infrastructure to lobbyists
7. Outed an active CIA field agent in an act of revenge and coercion
8. Turned budget surpluses into record deficits
9. Has the worst track record on job growth in the history of collecting labor data, and
10. Generally looked like a complete idiot whenever he opened his mouth

...is somehow favorable to the current President, then applying the most disdainful pejoratives to half the population is both accurate and appropriate. There was a time when more than half the population thought that slavery was reasonable so today isn't the first time that so many people could be so wrong and so intellectually bankrupt. That's the truth of it fedup. If the truth is denigrating, then so be it.

Way to denigrate half the population there, buddy.

Fed

Interesting, are you crying because you are among the denigrated and "absurdly obtuse" and "stuck in stupid"?

It's not like you haven't done worse against this President and the Democrats since before Barak Obama was elected. But what I find even more curious is that I haven't seen any plausible alternatives to this administration's policies, legislation and recommendations. Nor have I seen any cogent aguments and explinations why Obama's legislation is so terrible for Americ. Just because you fright right radicals say it's bad doesn't make so. You're just juggling for position.

Luke,

You can be flippant about Obama's color but it counts for a lot of this attitude towards his administration and the Democrats no matter the white fright right.s denials.

Interesting, are you crying because you are among the denigrated and "absurdly obtuse" and "stuck in stupid"?

As I didn't vote for Obama, then yes, I would be considered by dwillie to be those things. Am I crying over it? Not at all. His opinion of me doesn't count for a whole lot. I just find it interesting that he chooses to believe that no one who disagrees with his lofty views could have any intelligent thought whatsoever.

It's not like you haven't done worse against this President and the Democrats since before Barak Obama was elected.

Exactly what have I done against this President and the Democrats? And by the way, it's spelled "Barack".

But what I find even more curious is that I haven't seen any plausible alternatives to this administration's policies, legislation and recommendations.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Nor have I seen any cogent aguments and explinations why Obama's legislation is so terrible for Americ.

Are there any aRguments or explAnations you'd actually accept?

Just because you fright right radicals say it's bad doesn't make so.

And just because you choose to call me names, and Obama says it's good doesn't make it so, either.

BTW, if you're going to denigrate people's intelligence, at least run spellcheck before you post.

Oh please, Luke. That wasn't playing the proverbial "race card" at all and your indignation is just plain silly. I only provided one of several possible examples in American history where large number of people could be totally and completely wrong about a matter and slavery just happens to be the most obvious. You don't think that considering another human being inferior to the point of justifying their enslavement isn't intellectual bankruptcy? I almost wrote that most people believed that the world was flat but that was disproven prior to America's founding.

Since you're so reflexively negative on any mention of race at any time, Luke, I'll humor you with some other examples where the majority of Americans were wrong:

1. The majority of Americans thought that child labor was ok
2. The majority of Americans thought that man could not fly
3. The majority of Americans thought that women didn't need or deserve the right to vote
4. The majority of Americans did not know that smoking did not have a negative effect on health

There. Happy Now? In spite of your silly tangent, Luke, my point still stands: any favorable comparison of President Bush relative to President Obama has more to do with so many Americans being stupid than it has to do with the relative characteristics of either president.

Fedup, you are doing nothing but reinforcing the efficacy of my perspective. There are plenty of people I disagree with vehemently whose intellect I respect, including people who did not vote for President Obama. As I said before, I haven't provided any opinion on President Obama myself. I've merely pointed out that given the preponderance of evidence, no logical person would hold President Bush in relatively higher esteem. There is simply no logic to it. President Bush has proven to be the worst President since Hoover. He has done damage that won't be fixed for at least a generation.

You don't have to cry over it or get worked up over it. I have a well-founded opinion based on evidence. It isn't the first time that so many people have been so stupid, not because they disagree with me, but because they simply ignore the facts and evidence. Silly is your implied notion that a lot of people sharing a particular opinion somehow makes them astute. As i list above, there are many examples where that notion simply does not hold water. If the opinion of a group is stupid, then its stupid. If you think like they do, fedup, that is your malfunction.

dwillie, while I appreciate that you have your own perspective on things, it doesn't mean that you are correct, or that other peoples' views are invalid. You believe that your opinion is well-founded and is evidence-based. So do I. I'm not claiming to be a Bush fan. I disagreed with many things he did. That doesn't mean I like Obama's policies or the way he has conducted his presidency thus far. Given a choice between the two, I believe Bush to be the lesser of two evils.

Go for it dwillie

Your opinion matters here same as President Obama's detractors.

Short on memory, long on hate.

Truth be known, the President doesn't even have a history of slavery in his personal birth background, white American mother, black African father born in Africa. Now if some could say Hawaii isn't really a state, they would really p!ss and moan.

Personally if what the seeder thinks is to be analyzed, I am on the side of questioning either the I.Q. of that population or its morality.

After all, Luke Wright did describe Mr. Bush according to what is known as character traits and moral ethics, but I see no description of the character of President Obama.

The 10 items you listed in your post #14.2 only reinforces what the seeder posted, beginning with describing Mr. Bush as a lying, etc.

Now I hear the book sales, so far, are not what has been expected. One can't help but wonder why(true sarcasm).

To your "points" Luke...

by looking at our trade deficit with China, they still do think it's ok...as long as it's Chinese children

Agreed, though it does not detract from my point.

Man indeed cannot fly dwillie. Airplanes can fly, but man...not so much!

Agreed in the name of accuracy. But you know what I meant.

Hmm, well they are kinda moody at certain times of the month ain't they? ( I kid, I kid)

I'm not touching that one.

It dosesn't? Huh, now that's a puzzler there dwillie.

Cigarette manufacturers actually ran ads touting the health benefits of smoking.

None of these distract from the point that I made to fedup, who seems to believe that the correctness of a perspective rests with the number of people who agree with it. America's history is replete with examples of mass ignorance - either willful or otherwise. The republican victories in these mid-term elections is just one more example of galactic stupidity run amok.

I understand perfectly - Bush is the "queen mother" of all cuss words bad.

nope

obama is worse than bush...and the next president will likely be worse than obama...and so on and so on.

as long as we have presidents who continue the previous ones positions,....continue our corrupt foreign policy and do not stand up for american rights or human rights for that matter we are doomed.

obama for instance making it legal to kill american citizens without due process makes him the biggest bastard in the last half century to me.

peace.

You are correct about his appointments to positions in his administration.

The poll of november 2nd had real consequence. I understand your feelings about Obama in 2012 even though I disagree as I had the very same feelings in 2004 for President Bush vs. his idiot opponents I wanted to spite and worked harder and longer on that campaign than any other in my life so far.

The poll of november 2nd had real consequence

True but whether it is your or my side will remain to be seen, perhaps it is both. I hope the consequence isn't as dire for the young lives that have decided to join the military, as it was when Bush took over again.