100 Reasons Why President Obama Is NOT The Same As President Bush

[sheshe2]

President Obama and President Bush should never be compared to one another. Ever. These men couldn’t be more different when it comes to policy, personality, and decision-making. In fact, let us count the 100 different ways in which the two men governed; differences that will remind us all why we should be glad that Bush is not still in the White House.

1. Bush started the war in Iraq and Obama ended it.

2. Bush lowered taxes on the wealthy and Obama raised taxes on the wealthy.

3. Bush tried to give Social Security to Wall Street and Obama protected it.

4. Bush left office with a $1 trillion deficit and Obama has lowered it.

5. President Bush ignored the War in Afghanistan and Obama made it his focus.

6. Bush didn’t kill Osama Bin Laden; Obama did.

7. Bush sanctioned torture and Obama ended torture.

8. Bush opened the Gitmo prison and Obama is trying to close it.

9. Bush instituted the failed No Child Left Behind education program and Obama ended it.

10. Bush relied on military force while Obama has relied on diplomacy.

11. Bush nominated mostly men to the Supreme Court and Obama has focused on nominating women. (Bush nominated one woman, but she was totally unqualified for the position.)

12. Bush nominated white men to the Supreme Court while Obama has nominated a white woman and a Latina.

13. Bush was placed in office by a conservative-leaning Supreme Court in 2000 while Obama won each of his elections legitimately.

14. Bush took unilateral action in foreign policy while Obama has worked more with our allies.

15. Bush responded poorly to natural disasters like Katrina, while Obama has responded more than adequately to disasters like Irene and Sandy.

16. Bush detained terrorists without due process and Obama has had terrorists prosecuted successfully with due process.

SNIP

Two men, two very different presidencies. Due to Republican obstruction in the Senate and Republican control of the House, Obama has been unable to dismantle much of the Bush legacy that has nearly destroyed this country. If Obama had a cooperative Congress like Bush had, they would be even more different from each other. In fact, it’s likely a more liberal agenda would have been pursued by the Obama Administration, meaning the country would be stronger, healthier, and better than the nightmare that reigned during the Bush years. It will take many more years to clean up the mess conservatives left for Obama. And if Americans turn Congress blue in 2014, the clean up effort will go a whole lot quicker.

Read more: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/05/12/100-different-ways-president-obama-vs-president-bush/#ixzz2akyZrzRT

[geek tragedy]

1. look for the vote suppressors to nit pick the list.

"Well, #XY isn't literally true in every possible way, so really Obama is exactly the same as Bush"

[sheshe2]

4. Oh I know, geek tragedy~

[Cha]

10. "vote suppressors"? Are they trying to keep people from

voting now?!

[geek tragedy]

11. The "don't bother voting crowd"

Some are willful trolls. Others are deluded idiots.

All of them are pawns of the GOP.

[Cha]

13. Ah, I haven't seen that.. but, then

I have a shitload on ignore.

They're exactly pawns of the gop. the gop loves their lazy asses.

[hfojvt]

63. #2 is not even true

Bush lowered taxes on the wealthy and Obama made most of those lower taxes permament. That's not a tax increase, it is just a slightly smaller tax cut, but in many ways worse than the larger one, because that one had an expiration date and now Obama's tax cuts for the rich are permanent.

Something Congressional Democrats probably never would have allowed if McCain or Romney was President.

And in that sense Obama is WORSE than Bush. Bush is an enemy of the working class, to be sure, but Obama is worse, he's a traitor to the working class. One who pretends to be a friend, but then stabs them in the back.

[geek tragedy]

72. This is the kind of ignorant pig crap I would expect from someone

who prefers Bush to Obama.

Obama shifted the tax burden to the wealthy by keeping taxes lower for working people while allowing marginal rates to go back up for the wealthy. The alternative was to raise taxes on everyone.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/here-s-what-s-in-the-fiscal-cliff-deal-20130101

Higher taxes on individuals earning $400,000 and on families making $450,000 or more. Under that threshold, the Bush-era tax cuts will be permanent for all but the wealthiest households. The $450,000 threshold for families is a significant increase from Democrats’ initial proposal to raise taxes on Americans making $250,000 or more, but it is lower than Republicans’ earlier proposal to raise taxes on households making $1 million or more.

Higher tax rates on capital gains and dividends for wealthier households. Taxes on capital gains and dividends will be held at their current levels of 15 percent for individuals making less than $400,000 and households with income of less than $450,000. They will rise to 20 percent for individual taxpayers and for households above those thresholds.

One-year extension to unemployment insurance. Emergency unemployment benefits will be extended for a year. The extension was a priority for President Obama and congressional Democrats.

Personal exemptions phased out for individuals making over $250,000. Personal exemptions will be phased out and itemized deductions will be limited for taxpayers making over $250,000 and families earning more than $300,000.

40 percent estate tax. The estate tax will rise to 40 percent from its current 35 percent level, with the first $5 million in assets exempted. Democrats had earlier sought a higher increase to 45 percent and a lower exemption of $3.5 million.

Permanent fix to the Alternative Minimum Tax. The alternative minimum tax was levied to ensure the wealthiest Americans paid a fair share of taxes. It was not indexed for inflation but is usually “patched” annually to prevent an increasingly large swath of middle-class Americans from being caught in its net. As part of the fiscal deal, the AMT will be permanently indexed to inflation.

Tax breaks for working families. The deal includes five-year extensions of the American Opportunity Tax Credit, which can be claimed for college-related expenses; the Child Tax Credit; and the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is a refundable income-tax credit for low- to moderate income working Americans.

Business tax breaks. The Senate Finance Committee passed a package in August that tackled a variety of routinely expiring tax provisions known as extenders. These popular tax provisions include breaks for research and development. That package passed as part of the broader cliff deal.

You can sit there and pretend that Obama's failure to raise taxes on the working class makes him a traitor to the working class, but that's your derangement, not reality, much like your preference for Bush over Obama is deranged.

Oh, and Republicans control the House btw. One would never know it from listening to the inane babblings of the We Prefer Bush caucus here at DU.

[hfojvt]

84. I consider it ignorant to call a tax cut a tax increase

and there are more than two alternatives

That was the false dichotomy that Bush liked to use. Either we invade Iraq or the alternative is to do nothing.

No, for pig ignorance, look at this kind of crap - spin for the rich.

"Higher taxes on individuals earning $400,000 and on families making $450,000 or more. Under that threshold, the Bush-era tax cuts will be permanent for all but the wealthiest households."

"Higher taxes on individuals" - compared to what? "Higher" compared to where they were AFTER the Bush tax cuts, not "higher" compared to where they were BEFORE the Bush tax cuts. Compared to where they were before the Bush tax cuts (you know, the tax cuts that I hate, because I prefer Bush ) - compared to THAT, taxes for the rich are much lower.

Again that pig ignorant bullsh*t -"Under that threshold, the Bush-era tax cuts will be permanent for all but the wealthiest households."
is a load of crap. Why?

Because the Bush tax cuts are ALSO permanent for the wealthiest households. In fact, the permanent tax cuts are MUCH LARGER for the wealthiest households.

You see, both Rush Limbaugh, Mitt Romney and myself get to keep our Bush tax cuts on our first $400,000 in income.

Except for one tiny little problem - I only have about $27,000 in income, and taking away exemptions and deductions, I only have about $18,000 in taxable income.

So Mitt and Rush get tax cuts on about $380,000 more income than I do. Mitt also has about $5 million in income from dividends. Thanks to Obama those dividends are taxed at only 20% instead of at 39.6% like they were before Bush. Cha-ching! Hey, Romney just got PERMANENT tax cuts of $980,000 a year. And I am supposed to believe Obama raised his taxes?

And Obama CUT the estate tax by some $400 billion and claims that he RAISED it.

ATRA gives over the next decade
$1.3 trillion in permanent tax cuts to the richest 5% (oh, but because their tax cut got reduced from $1.9 trillion to $1.3 trillion I am supposed to believe their taxes went UP.)
$2.4 trillion in tax cuts to the richest 20%
$0.6 trillion in tax cuts to the bottom 60%

Most of the benefits go to the TOP, and I am supposed to believe Obama when he says he is always fighting for the bottom or the middle? He fought for tax cuts that favor the rich and lied and lies and claims that it favors the middle class. THAT is what makes him a traitor to the working class - the fact that he is serving the rich and lying to the working class.

Oh, and nice article from the M$M. I am sure I can always trust David Bradley (owner of the National Journal) to fight for the little guy. It's not like he is worth $500 million or something. Who are you gonna believe, a multi-millionaire's magazine, or some lying statistics?

[geek tragedy]

85. Your rejection of compromise as treasonous is exactly

the same as the House Republicans. Those who have the responsibility of governing do not have the luxury of indulging ideological fantasies wherein the purity of a politician's heart solely determines how good policy he can achieve is.

Taxes went up from 2012 to 2013. Only on the rich.

You did not get your pony, so you blame Obama. That is not a mature political outlook.

[hfojvt]

87. no, it is surrender that is treason

it is dishonesty that is treason.

The Obama administration has lied to you. You think taxes went up on the rich, based on what His administration and an M$M that favors the rich have told you.

http://ctj.org/pdf/bidenmcconnelldistribution.pdf

Note:

"The deal cuts taxes for even the richest Americans but directs only a fraction of the tax cuts to low and middle income Americans."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x814017#815650

And to think I wrote that BEFORE he surrendered for the 2nd time, even AFTER his re-election.

[geek tragedy]

88. Going back to the 2000 tax rates would have raised taxes

significantly on the working poor and middle class. They did not want their taxes to go up.

The way marginal tax rates work is that rich people benefit from middle class tax cuts moreso than the middle class. That is not Obama's fault.

Also, the pre-2001 rates are not the relevant baseline--2012 rates are.

You do not understand the difference between surrender and compromise. Compromise means accepting stuff you don't like. Surrender means getting nothing you want.

[hfojvt]

89. there we go right back to the original argument for the Bush tax cuts

"they only benefit the rich more, because of the way marginal tax rates work, it's not like we are doing this on purpose, it's not Bush's fault."

No, surrender also means getting stuff you should not have gotten - you know, like huge tax cuts for the rich that will increase inequality forever (since they are permanent).

It IS Obama's fault that he did not even bother to propose, much less fight for, tax cuts for the working poor that would not be a windfall for the rich.

Okay, he did propose ONE such tax cut, and even got it passed as part of the stimulus, but then quickly and quietly dropped it in favor of tax cuts for the upper classes.

Here's something my link should show you - the average income of 80% of taxpayers is less than $74,400 (and that is usually HOUSEHOLD income - not individual income). So keeping the Bush tax cuts for individuals with income under $50,000 and families under $100,000 would have covered the VAST MAJORITY of taxpayers, and been far, far less of a windfall to the rich. (But oh, the horror, how can we ask a couple making $150,000 to pay another $20 a week in taxes. Somebody please think of the middle class. That poor, poor $150,000 couple. How did they manage to scrape by in 1999?)

But that wasn't even Obama's STARTING point, and no elected Democrat or pundit (besides myself in an obscure discussion board) bothered to mention, much less fight for, a much more equitable set of tax cuts.

And the pre-2001 rates ARE the relevant baseline.

Unless you want all of the Bush tax cuts to be permanent - which I did NOT.

[geek tragedy]

91. Question: where must all tax bills originate?

You're still conflating surrender and compromise. If you can't keep the concepts straight, you'll never find anything acceptable.

[hfojvt]

93. question: who controlled the House on 12 December 2010?

Which President held the trump card? The trump card being - all of the Bush tax cuts would automatically expire.

Instead of fighting at that time, President Obama kicked the can down the road. And he made a speech where he said "I know some people want me to fight." (he called it a "political" fight like income inequality isn't a real world problem, fighting about that is just "politics".)

Some people wanted him to fight for the bottom 80% at least as hard as Republicans were fighting for the top 1%. But he wouldn't do it. Instead, he gave in to Republicans signed a really bad bill and promised "next time I will fight".

But he also painted his bad bill, his surrender at the time, as a victory and some members even of the supposed left were willing to help him do so - Ezra Klein and David Corn, to name just two).

And this next time, we got another bad bill, another bad compromise, A compromise where our side (or Obama's side) gave up 85% and where Republicans only gave up 15%.

And some still want to call that a victory, as a positive thing, that a $3.7 trillion tax cut with $1.3 trillion going to the top 5% is a "tax increase on the rich".

[geek tragedy]

94. Again, you act as if letting all the bush tax cuts expire in the middle of a recession

was an acceptable economics. It was not--that would have been austerity on steroids.

The Republicans would have been more than happy to send him a clean extension of all Bush tax cuts for time eternal in January 2011' and he very well may have signed it.

[hfojvt]

95. do me one favor, please

don't lecture me about economics.

I happen to have an MA in that field and I am guessing that you do not.

And the fact that "he may very well have signed it" is supposed to be a defense of his betrayal.

Because we could not count on him to say in his veto statement "too much of these tax cuts go to the top and they add to much to the deficit".

So you agree with me then, that we cannot count on Obama to NOT give big tax breaks to the rich.

[geek tragedy]

96. You have provided zero economic analysis.

It is unclear whether you have thought through the economic consequences of the approach you would have taken, I.e. let everyone's taxes go up.

Taxes for the rich went up, not down, under Obama. You are complaining because they didn't go all the way back up to where they were when Clinton was President. The only way to have achieved this would have been to let everyone's taxes go up, plus the failure to adjust the AMT and expiration of EITC.

You personally preferred that course. The vast majority of Americans rejected your preference. Shockingly, most working people opposed having their taxes go up

Obama did not betray anyone with the fiscal cliff deal. He negotiated a deal you personally found insufficiently impure but that the vast majority of Americans supported.

Your sense of betrayal is personal--you do not speak for anywhere near a majority of working Americans.

http://mobile.nationaljournal.com/daily/poll-don-t-extend-bush-cuts-for-wealthy-20120618

A new United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll shows that only 26 percent of the public wants to see all of the tax breaks created during the George W. Bush administration, which are set to expire at year’s end, extended for at least another year. And only 18 percent want the tax breaks across all income levels made permanent, the position taken by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

...
In the poll, 47 percent of respondents said they wanted to see the tax breaks extended only for those earning less than $250,000. Eighteen percent said they prefer that all the tax breaks simply expire, which would result in higher taxes across the income spectrum.

[hfojvt]

98. does it ever occur to you

that the majority of people in this country are, like yourself, misinformed by the M$M and the shills for an Obama administration that is serving the rich while he pretends to fight for the poor?

Under Obama, the rich got permanent tax CUTS.

Yeah, sure, the only way to prevent tax increases on everyone is to give huge, permanent tax cuts to the rich. Right.

And who else claimed that his tax cuts were really mainly helping the poor? That's right, George W,. Bush.

And as far as me providing economic analysis, well that is not really what we are talking about, but I can clearly see that your analysis, brought to you by the M$M, is shallow and hollow, and it pains me to have such ignorance waved in my face.

[geek tragedy]

99. Bottom line is that Obama couldn't please you and the majority

of the American public at the same time, so he decided to go with the American public, and you're all butthurt over that development.

Boo fucking hoo.

Last word is yours.

[hfojvt]

103. you still do not get it

but you don't want to get it either, so I understand

the REASON, you see, that Obama could not please me AND the American public is because the American public has been lied to by the rich. And Obama, instead of using his position to inform the American public, decided to lie to them himself. He did so, so that he could pass a huge tax cut for the rich and still keep his supporters dumb and happy.

Too bad for me, that I cannot be happy because I have too much education to fall for Obama's lies and I have too much concern for the country to be happy about the harm his lies and bad policies are going to cause.

Oh but yeah, let's make a bullsh*t list of all the great things he has done and help to spread the LIE that he increased taxes on the rich. Romney's laughing all the way to the bank on that one. $900,000 a year in permanent tax cuts for him and $100,000,000 in permanent tax cuts for each of the Walton's. Yeah, Obama really stuck it to them.

[liberal_at_heart]

2. Race to the Top=No Child Left Behind.

[jazzimov]

80. Nope. Totally different. nt

[lpbk2713]

3. Shit-for-Brains was born on third base.

Obama hits his own home runs.

[freshwest]

5. The 'both parties are the same' believers want Obama to fail, just like Rush.

There is a mythology about Democrats being Fabian Socialists, and the GOP being, well...

That's where the narrative goes silent, as Teabagger and Libertarian patriot pundits promote it most. Those who are not affected by losing their right to choose who they will love or their right to not be incubators, or their right to vote, eat this right up.

So they cannot see what the Democratic Party and Obama are about, as those things are the squawks of chickens crushed under their Rand Paul elephant. These voices do not care about anything Obama and the Democrats do, so if they can depress the vote of Democrats by saying so, they will do so.

They will refuse to take the time to learn what Obama or Democrats are doing or anything outside the meme. It's a fanatical cult with its own gods, prophets and martyrs.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. And some cannot believe that democrats at times do vote

Badly for the people, case in point my rep...or that as far as national security you can scarcely find light...at the leadership level, nor did we imagine grand bargains or chained CPI.

I wish though that you stopped talking of a cult, cause you know what? There is one...and it is not those of us who are for the needs of the American people, and not the American Corporation.

Yup...I read this and shook my head. After all, I wrote a similar screed and I can look forwards to an alerted, locked post. In fact, looking forwards to it anyway

[sheshe2]

14. Nadin,

I wish though that you stopped talking of a cult, cause you know what? There is one...and it is not those of us who are for the needs of the American people, and not the American Corporation.

Who is "not those of us who are for the need of the American people"?

Are you suggesting that those of us, the ones that are so cutely called Obamabots, don't care. That this President does not. Have you ever even read some of the issues "we post about". Maybe you should.

Many issues are on our minds nadin. We post on those yet I never see you rec a positive post about this President.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110212904

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Sorry if you do not like my posting these days

I was elated in 2008, crying even. I am not the one touting chained CPI (which will affect me personally btw) on the table. He is.

I am not the one not even discussing single payor in health care discussions, he is.

Has the administration done some good? Like all administrations...yes. Will historians judge most presidencies, starting with Reagan, not so well...yes.

Sorry if I refuse to think of these men as "leaders" and engage in myth making

They are merely human...and they are not great...beyond reproach. And these days...well...I am allergic to inverted totalitarian states, which incidentally started to take present from with Clinton, accelerated with Bush and we are where we are...where elections are academic exercises anymore.

Any real effect? At the local level perhaps. So no you will not find me blindly applauding anybody just because of a letter behind name, or call them leaders. You go right ahead

[sheshe2]

45. Thanks freshwest,

Sad isn't it!

[freshwest]

46. Yes, the power of money in media is devastating our country.

[Rex]

6. Does anyone really believe that they are the same?

It is an insult to my intelligence to actually hold a mental conversation that Bush and Obama are the same. They are not even CLOSE. I don't need a list to tell me that.

[Wilms]

8. Very few, I'd imagine.

But there are those that want to believe it's the case because it's easier than intelligently considering and debating the issues.

[Rex]

9. True.

It just gets frustrating thinking people believe they are the same.

[Common Sense Party]

81. The same? No. Similar on several issues and policies? Yes, undoubtably.

[sheshe2]

17. One link is to an OP.

The other 2 are responses. Plenty more with a site search.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002438512

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3001067

http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2985601

But there are those that want to believe it's the case because it's easier than intelligently considering and debating the issues.

So no, it is not about being easier than debating the issues.

[Wilms]

21. Scahill isn't a DU member, that I'm aware of.

And those claims aren't that Obama is the same as Bush. The claims are that he's WORSE with regard to the particular issues raised. THE PARTICULAR ISSUES RAISED.

Care to speak to them?

[sheshe2]

50. Which issues do you wish me to respond to?

Seems to be plenty of negatives....never one fricking post to his positives.

Sad that, it really is. The hate, well it's hard to cut through with even the sharpest knife in the block.

[davidpdx]

83. I'd say there are many more than a few on DU that have taken that stance

It's still a minority of the members, but a very vocal one at that.

[wryter2000]

19. I've seen people say he's worse than Bush

Sometimes, I wonder what people are drinking around here.

[GlashFordan]

33. No one believes they are the SAME

But they're not polar opposites either.

[sheshe2]

75. Riiiight...not polar opposites.

Keep that thought with you, and the women in your life that you hold dear.



http://www.barackobama.com/womens-issues/



Bush did this~

Bush's Measures to Undermine Abortion Rights
In October 2002, the Bush administration issued final regulations specifically making fetuses—but not pregnant women—eligible for health care coverage under the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The rule short-changes the health care needs of poor expectant women—not all prenatal care is covered by making fetuses eligible. The new designation is just one of the many Bush efforts to elevate the legal status of fetuses over that of women.

Bush proclaimed January 20, 2002 "National Sanctity of Human Life Day" in a proclamation that not-so-subtly likened abortion to terrorism. The proclamation stated: "On September 11, we saw clearly that evil exists in this world, and that it does not value life. Now we are engaged in a fight against evil and tyranny to preserve and protect life."

As a presidential candidate, Bush criticized the Food and Drug Administration's approval of mifepristone (also known as RU-486, or the "abortion pill&quot , and in 2001, as president, he supported FDA re-evaluation. Now he wants to appoint right-wing religious activist Dr. David Hager, who is working to overturn the FDA's approval of mifepristone, to the FDA's influential Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee.
Bush supports the Reagan-era

http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/roe30/record.html

[Cha]

12. This list had to be done because they're too

many ignorant polluters on the internet willfully and otherwise.. spouting "obama is just like bush "

"I know cause greenham told me so "

[sheshe2]

15. Addicting Info had this

listed under debunking the Myths~

Thanks Cha

[Number23]

18. I am mortified that there are people in the world that this shit had to even be spelled out to.

[sheshe2]

20. I feel your pain Number23.

[Jamaal510]

48. I'm mortified that

there are still self-described progressives/liberals who this has to be spelled out to.

[zipplewrath]

22. Arguing the hyperbole

You realize you're arguing against the hyperbole. Very few people making these comparisons mean it truly literally. Their point is grounded in the point of view that on the issues of concern to them, the differences are insignificant with respect to the similarities. Anyone who is actually serious about the "sameness", isn't really going to read this at all.

[Raine1967]

26. The hyperbole is a problem.

It's a problem her on DU, in particular. It's a problem that takes away from real debate. I see it almost every time I see a post that starts with these words:

So you....


Arguing the hyperbole has been a problem here for a while.

That said, I do see posters here on DU trying to make the argument that the OP is trying to debunk. If they don't mean it literally, they aren't doing a very good job of making that clear. Those that do mean it literally -- well, I would have to wonder why they are here at DU at all.

[zipplewrath]

29. One of many

You pretty much have to accept that this is not a debate society, but an electronic water cooler. You're going to see alot of different discussion styles, even out of the same poster. There's as much avoidance in a request like "do you have a link for that" as there is in the expression of the form "well if you think THAT then you must also support [insert completely unrelated topic]". If you want to limit yourself to only certain kinds of debates, you're gonna have to pick and choose with whom you engage.

[Raine1967]

47. Good food for thought.

Thanks for saying this. It doesn't make discussion any easier, but for me, it helps. I'm sure if I want to limit myself, I do know I don't want to be misrepresented by certain debate tactics.

Thank you.

[Jack Rabbit]

35. I've been critical of Obama for his surveillance policies and his acquiescence to Wall Street fraud

Nevertheless, even I can come up with better things to say about him than a left-handed compliment like he's better than Bush. If that's your standard, Richard Nixon, Warren G. Harding and James Buchanan were all better presidents than Bush, too.

[LWolf]

23. You forgot one:

Democrats in Congress opposed Bush. Obama got support from Congressional Democrats when he continued and extended Bush atrocities.

Edited to add:

I have never, and am not now, suggesting that Obama is no different from GWB, since some obviously need this to be spelled out.

[NewJeffCT]

24. Obama is certainly far better than Bush

And better than McCain or Romney would have been. However, that doesn't mean I love Obama and some of his decisions or his negotiating style. (I had expected him to be a moderate in office, too.)

[derby378]

25. You can cross #7 off the list

"7. Bush sanctioned torture and Obama ended torture."

When? Bradley Manning was subjected to psychological torture during his detainment before trial, and there are prisoners in Guantanamo Bay who are being tortured by force-feeding. Rebuttal?

[sheshe2]

36. ...

In the first sign of friction within his new administration, President Obama overruled the pleas of senior U.S. intelligence officials and signed a new executive order that bars the CIA from using harsh interrogation methods beyond those permitted by the U.S. military.

The order was one of four sweeping directives Obama signed calling for the closure of the U.S. detention facility at Guantánamo Bay and revamping U.S. counterterrorism policies.

The executive orders, while expected, represented a clean break with Bush administration policies and won quick praise from human-rights groups. Still, many of the difficult details—such as what to do with Guantánamo detainees still deemed dangerous—will be left up to a special interagency panel that won't report its recommendations to Obama for six months. The panel is to be chaired by Obama's choice for attorney general, Eric Holder, who is still awaiting confirmation.

In perhaps his most far-reaching and potentially controversial move, Obama ordered that the CIA immediately cease using any interrogation techniques that are not already authorized in the U.S. Army Field Manual. He also ordered the CIA to close, "as expeditiously as possible," any secret detention facilities overseas and begin immediate compliance with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits "humiliating and degrading" treatment of prisoners.

In a stinging, if not entirely surprising, rebuke to Bush administration legal policies, Obama's order states that U.S. government officials involved in interrogations may no longer rely on any Justice Department legal memos written between September 11, 2001, and Jan. 20, 2009. Such memos—many of them still secret and the subject of fierce controversy during the Bush years—were, with one stroke of Obama's pen, made invalid.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/01/21/the-end-of-torture.html



Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) made clear the Republican support for Gitmo in a statement, “What has not changed since the issuance of the president’s executive orders is that terrorists working to attack the United States are enemy combatants, and if captured should be placed in military custody where they can be interrogated. The decision of the president to import Sulaiman Abu Ghaith into the United States solely for civilian prosecution makes little sense, and reveals, yet again, a stubborn refusal to avoid holding additional terrorists at the secure facility at Guantanamo Bay despite the circumstances.”

snip

It’s beyond frustrating that Americans elected President Obama twice, in part due to his approach to our foreign policy and national security, and yet they are getting Bushian/Republican policies on Gitmo and military tribunals shoved down their throats because Republicans and some Democrats refuse to fund Obama’s executive order.

Contrary to what you may have read for the last four years, President Obama really did sign an executive order to close Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (aka, Gitmo) and bring terror suspects to the continental US for civilian trials instead of military tribunals, per his understanding of our Constitution.

On January 22, 2009, as one of his first official acts in office, Barack Obama signed an executive order to close Gitmo within one year. On that day Obama said, “This is me following through on not just a commitment I made during the campaign, but I think an understanding that dates back to our founding fathers, that we are willing to observe core standards of conduct, not just when it’s easy, but also when it’s hard.”

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/03/10/republicans-finally-closet-preventing-obama-closing-gitmo-civilian-trials.html


House Republican Defense Bill Blocks Guantanamo Closing
By RICHARD LARDNER and DONNA CASSATA 06/03/13 02:13 PM ET EDT AP

WASHINGTON -- Rebuffing President Barack Obama's latest plea, House Republicans on Monday proposed keeping open the military-run prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by barring the administration from transferring its terror suspects to the United States or a foreign country such as Yemen.

The provisions dealing with the fate of the remaining 166 prisoners are part of a defense policy bill drafted by Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard P. "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif. The chairman released the bill Monday, two days before Republicans and Democrats on the committee will vote on it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/03/house-republican-guantanamo_n_3379328.html

[Dawson Leery]

27. kick

[Bonobo]

28. Who says he is the same as Bush?

The problem is that he is not Obama 2008.

[GlashFordan]

30. Every single one of those should be asterisk'd

Obama ended war. One, who's to say it wouldn't have ended naturally as the mission wound down? Two, the Iraqi bloodshed continued for years after 2009. Three, ended Iraq but escalated Afg. Four, unprecedented use of drones and collateral damage (aka dead civilians)

Next thing you will tell me he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize lol.

[JohnnyRingo]

31. I can't believe we need a list.

I need only one. He saved my GM pension.

I was only weeks away from a drastic change in lifestyle, and no one imagined GM would get the federal funds to avoid solvency and a shredding of UAW contracts. Republicans don't hate Corvettes after all, they hate the union, and they were working overtime to see GM circle the drain and take the UAW with it. Then in a republican wet dream, some corporate hero would step in and take over with minimum wages and no benefits.

I don't care if Obama strafes my house with a freakin' drone and logs every keystroke I make. He had my back, now I have his. If anyone thinks that makes me a lackey, I ask if they'd be willing to sacrifice their very livelihood in a trade off for one of their pet Obama peeves.

One of the greatest presidents ever. K&R

[sheshe2]

38. I thank you Johnny Ringo.

I am so glad that your pension was saved! Excellent news.

I have a family member that just restored a 76 Vette. Teal blue and she is a beauty!

GM built that baby to last! Thank you.

[Fire Walk With Me]

32. So what is new (worse) or hasn't changed?

Alan Grayson TPP Secret Treaty “This Hands Sovereignty of Our Country Over to Corp Interests"
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/06/first-congress-member-allowed-to-read-secret-treaty-says-there-is-no-national-security-purpose-in-keeping-this-text-secret-this-agreement-hands-the-sovereignty-of-our-country-over-t.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023049340

-Citizens United = unlimited donations and campaign spending by corporations and rich businessmen. $2 billion spent upon this election cycle. Mussolini's definition of Fascism says it should be called corporatism, because it is a merger of state and corporate power.
-No wall street regulation or punishment, same with the banks
-A multiple hundred-fold disparity in income between CEOs and workers, which remains unchanged even a year after OWS
-Drones used for summary execution of foreigners and US citizens abroad suspected of terrorism or terrorist ties
-Hundreds of children killed by these drones in more than five countries
-The NDAA signed again for another year, allowing indefinite detention of US citizens without trial or representation
-The Bush-era FISA warrantless wireless wiretapping bill was just signed into five more years of activity.
-The TPP is a secretive corporate alliance creating international law.
-The ALEC is a secretive national corporate alliance creating US law, such as "stand your ground". (Mussolini: Fascism/Corporatism)
-7400+ Occupy members bloodied and arrested for peacefully protesting the above with nary a whisper from the White House. Silence is consent.
-Glass-Steagall remains removed, and the banks remain unregulated. Reinstate it now.
-There are 64 drone bases being built within the US as you read this. Did you vote for this? No. No citizen did.
-Drones will be used by increasingly militarized law enforcement, who are now tentacles of the illegal DHS. See Los Angeles iWatch and Special Order 11. All your information are belong to us.
-The DHS have membership who are blatantly anti-Occupy (Peter King) and have lied about spying upon Occupy from the beginning. "Trust your mechanic..."
-The FBI have been raiding Occupy activists' apartments for "literature", creating terrorists by offering bomb-making materiel to Americans, and spying upon Americans in general.
-Yes, militarized police and sheriffs. Have you seen the armored vehicles and weaponry being handed out by DHS, much less the hundreds of millions of hollow point munitions purchased by DHS (who will not discuss it)?
-Word of microphones being installed on buses to record citizen conversation. "Americans as terrorists" is making big money to arms and war tech dealers who are only interested in creating a new market...inside the US.
-Obama just signed life-long protection from protesters for himself and W Bush, via permanent Secret Service protection. HR347 makes it a Federal crime to protest where there are secret service present. He's protected a war criminal who desperately requires protesting! Life long protesting!
-The US government have known about "robosigning", the illegal foreclosure mill used by big banks, for over two years and have done nothing as citizens have their homes stolen. Yes, wall street are among the buyers at the quarterly bulk sales.
-Amber Lyon found and revealed that CNN take money from the Bahrain government to report that "everything is okay" while it IS NOT. Where is the government oversight upon this and truth-telling in mainstream media?
-Clarence Thomas (Supreme Court judge) was a lawyer for Monsanto, yet he will not recuse himself from Monsanto cases brought before him. There is now a Monsanto person in the FDA. WTF.
-Goldman Sachs. Enough said. Perhaps not. Did you know GS execs are in power in Greece, Italy, and other countries that are being savaged by "austerity", which is nothing more than socialized debt and theft? And power grabs?
-The multinational Trans-Canada Keystone XL pipeline and the horrifically toxic Tar Sands development. Stealing the environment and people's land with a nod from government.
-Private, for-profit prisons (taxpayer-funded) advertising a 90% occupancy rate. Thank you "war on drugs", with some 46% of inmates incarcerated on drug-related offences. Research the prison-industrial complex and those profiting (don't overlook Wells Fargo's massive investment in one of these companies).
-The military industrial complex and the now-endless war budget (continues on US soil under the concept of "Americans are terrorists&quot .
-The TSA, who have been testing out on buses. Don't need them everywhere, please!

An amazing visualization of income inequality in America:

Obama, corporate shill:

Corporate Profits Have Grown By 171 Percent Under Obama -- Highest Rate Since 1900
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/corporate-profits-have-grown-171-percent-under-obama-highest-rate-1900

"Average annual corporate profit growth under Obama is the highest since 1900, whereas profit growth declined during both Bush presidencies. As a share of the economy, corporate profits have never been higher.
Unfortunately, this profit deluge has not been shared by workers, whose wages as a percentage of the economy have fallen to all-time lows. Workers also got dinged by the recent increase in the payroll tax, which was large enough to wipe out a minimum wage increase in some states."

8 Huge Corporate Handouts in the Fiscal Cliff Bill
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/8-huge-corporate-handouts-fiscal-cliff-bill

"Throughout the months of November and December, a steady stream of corporate CEOs flowed in and out of the White House to discuss the impending fiscal cliff. Many of them, such as Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, would then publicly come out and talk about how modest increases of tax rates on the wealthy were reasonable in order to deal with the deficit problem. What wasn’t mentioned is what these leaders wanted, which is what’s known as “tax extenders”, or roughly $205B of tax breaks for corporations. With such a banal name, and boring and difficult to read line items in the bill, few political operatives have bothered to pay attention to this part of the bill. But it is critical to understanding what is going on.

5) Subsidies for Goldman Sachs Headquarters – Sec. 328 extends 'tax exempt financing for York Liberty Zone,' which was a program to provide post-9/11 recovery funds. Rather than going to small businesses affected, however, this was, according to Bloomberg, 'little more than a subsidy for fancy Manhattan apartments and office towers for Goldman Sachs and Bank of America Corp.' Michael Bloomberg himself actually thought the program was excessive, so that’s saying something. According to David Cay Johnston’s The Fine Print, Goldman got $1.6 billion in tax free financing for its new massive headquarters through Liberty Bonds."

The Untouchables: How the Obama administration protected Wall Street from prosecutions
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/23/untouchables-wall-street-prosecutions-obama

Yes, Virginia, the Rich Continue to Get Richer: the Top 1% Got 121% of Income Gains Since 2009
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/02/yes-virginia-the-rich-continue-to-get-richer-the-1-got-121-of-income-gains-since-2009.html

U.S. banks in 2012 post highest profits since '06
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/26/us-usa-fdic-earnings-idUSBRE91P0N820130226?utm_source=Daily+Digest&utm_campaign=de8376aab3-DD_2_27_132_27_2013&utm_medium=email#.US5jjkXSlU8.twitter

This Year’s Subsidy to Wall Street = the Amount of This Year’s Sequester Cuts
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/02/this-years-subsidy-to-wall-street-the-amount-of-this-years-sequester-cuts.html#.US_yiFwwnHY.facebook

Don’t Blink, or You’ll Miss Another Bailout
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100466032

America faces more than a dozen deadlines, all caused by billionaires and wealth transfer
http://americablog.com/2013/02/america-faces-more-than-a-dozen-deadlines-all-caused-by-billionaires-and-wealth-transfer.html

Bank Bailout 2: Obama Lets Mortgage Abusers Off the Hook
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/02/09-5

Prison Labor Booms As Unemployment Remains High; Companies Reap Benefits
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/prison-labor_n_2272036.html

It’s Not a Housing Boom. It’s a Land Grab
http://colorlines.com/archives/2013/05/the_dangerous_new_housing_boom.html

The "fiscal cliff" scam involved making permanent some aspects of the Bush tax cuts to the rich.

-Retains the 10 percent, 15 percent, 25 percent, and 28 percent income tax brackets from the Bush tax cuts permanently
-Retains the 33 percent and 35 percent income tax brackets from the Bush tax cuts for taxable income under $400,000 (single), $425,000 (head of household), and $450,000 (joint filers). Imposes 39.6 percent tax rate on income above this level.

Details of the Fiscal Cliff Tax Deal
http://taxfoundation.org/blog/details-fiscal-cliff-tax-deal



Roll call for representatives with financial investment in the tarsands and TransCanada's KeystoneXL

"Hailing her longtime role as a 'trusted adviser,' President Barack Obama formally named U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice as his next national security adviser on Wednesday."
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/05/18772869-obama-appoints-susan-rice-as-national-security-adviser?lite

"Potential Secretary of State candidate Susan Rice holds as much as $600,000 of shares in TransCanada, the company seeking State Department approval to build the Keystone XL pipeline."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84355.html

The SEC Mulls An Investigation Calls Grow For John Boehner To Resign
http://www.politicususa.com/2012/01/28/john-boehner-resign.html

Speaker Boehner owns shares in seven different Canadian tar sand companies
https://www.facebook.com/OMCorg/posts/184196495016974

Congressmembers Implicated in Insider Stock Trading on TransCanada, Keystone XL Pipeline
http://www.desmogblog.com/congressmembers-implicated-insider-stock-trading-transcanada-keystone-xl-pipeline

The GOP’s Senate Oil Whores Get $22.3 Million From Keystone XL Backers
http://www.politicususa.com/2012/02/02/senate-keystone-xl.html


Oh, there IS a difference between the two political parties. However, note that neither the RNC nor the DNC mentioned PFC Manning, then 2 years in solitary confinement for revealing the lies of Bush's war; the NDAA, NDRP, HR347, the military industrial complex taking 50+ percent of our tax dollars under an infinite war standing, student debt totaling over one trillion dollars because it's a bankster scam, getting back the 16 trillion given away by the Fed and others to wall street and banks for bonuses, 7000+ Occupiers arrested and brutalized over the last year for talking about these very things (mostly attacked by "democratic" mayors such as Quan, Villaraigosa, etc.)... There IS a difference, but it is =not= where it matters, where it will actually solve the problems destroying us. Income inequality is utterly out of control, unions are being destroyed, the middle class is vanishing under long-term attack...and they're pushing the TPP which is NAFTA (passed by Clinton) on steroids...who mentioned an immediate foreclosure moratorium, much less an investigation into the (known for 3+ years) illegal robosigning mills? Wells Fargo and BofA are two criminal organizations still stealing homes at record rates through provably fraudulent means, yet they are allowed to continue at will. Why? Because it's been found that Wall Street are buying up foreclosed properties in bulk. There are more empty homes in American than there are homeless people (and many of the homeless are Veterans). Was there any mention of immediate care for Veterans, who desperately need it? What about the terrible percentage of Veterans who are killing themselves?

Neither party will address these issues either at all or in any meaningful manner. They continue to have to shut down social services (such as former Goldman Sachs lackey Rahm Emmanuel shutting down several mental health care clinics recently in Chicago, and now with Chicago teachers at the edge of striking...) Infrastructure problems are the result of forced "austerity", which means the people have to fund the theft of those trillions of dollars, or at least feel the result. Because no one is doing a single thing to retrieve it. There is no difference between the parties there. Where it most matters. National parks are being sold to foreign investors because "there's no money". Some people are getting extremely rich this way, through selling off America, and neither party is saying a word to stop it. The DHS and TSA are quietly expanding their presence and power as part of a power grab and we are happily allowing ourselves to become normalized to it, because it is occurring in increments, not all at once. Drones! They are setting up drones in our skies and newly-announced "wraith" ground drones which can travel 65MPH and climb over obstacles...to stop what? I don't see any terrorists, just US citizens. But that doesn't matter because arms dealers, the same ones who paid representatives to vote yes for the NDAA, need a new market, and a new market requires a new enemy. WE are that new enemy. Protest is already defined in a DoD manual as "low-level terrorism". Now the FBI are raiding protesters' homes on suspicion, not fact...same tactics used against the civil rights movement. The 1st Amendment is very nearly gone, and they're starting on the 4th (TSA, etc.).

Note that Obama was going to do his DNC speech at Charlotte's Bank of America Stadium (it was moved). Bank of America stole my friends' home through "double-tracking" :

https://www.facebook.com/OccupyFortHernandez

And have previously attempted to kick this family out as well. In fact, when Occupy Fights Foreclosures arrived at their house, they WERE on the street with all of their property! Note they have a 27 year-old severely disabled daughter!

BofA still attempting to kick a widow and her disabled daughter out on the street!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002645488

They later were able later to get back their home but victims of double-tracking are usually not so lucky. Why is Obama allowing this?


Three years of mostly solitary confinement for PFC Manning before a hint of a trial.
Despite human rights organizations making complaints and demands. To the US, that is not torture.
Obama signed the NDAA section 1021 which provides for the indefinite detention of US citizens with neither trial nor representation.
So they can stuff Snowden in a box for the rest of his life and say it's perfectly legal, which by their legislation and interpretation, it is.
The US also said they wouldn't scramble fighters to get a 29-year-old hacker, then force down the plane of another country's president for 12 hours, hoping to find Snowden on board, creating an international incident. Obama said he'd protect whistle-blowers then arrested them all.
Obama said "violence against peaceful protesters is unacceptable" in regard to the early Egyptian uprising, then sends militarized police to beat and arrest 7400+ Occupiers who were trying to draw attention to terrible economic injustice. Obama has since continued bail-outs to wall street and the big corporations and the DOJ calls the banks too big to jail. Then Obama appoints billionaire worker's rights offender Penny Pritzker to a government post. And starts talking about Summers, a Wall Street de-regulator, to head the Fed (which printed trillions of dollars for banks which we'll never ever again see, all the while forcing "sequestration" upon the little people because there's no money).
Then Obama says he's just like Trayvon Martin the same week praises the unConstitutional racist Ray Kelly as being viable for secretary of DHS (where he'd bring "stop and frisk", which stops 85% black and brown people, everywhere). And Obama has done nothing to wind down or eliminate GEORGE BUSH'S surveillance state. On the contrary, he forced down a sovereign nation's president's plane looking for him, an international incident.
It was posited that Obama's promise to aid whistle-blowers was a straight-up honeypot intended to capture as many as possible in one fell swoop. Which would mean he came into office with such plans.
Obama said "transparency and the rule of law will the the touchstones of this administration."

Then:

Extra-judicial executions of US citizens suspected of terror or terrorist ties! Fuck the rule of law or telling people about his kill lists. Oops, kill lists, another reason to trust our executioner in chief.

When they say they won't torture him, they mean we're planning to torture him. They say the opposite of what they fully intend to do, like all politicians.

Obama Promises, Including Whistleblower Protections, Disappear From Website
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/26/obama-whistleblower-website_n_3658815.html

And Obama supporting the NSA...

What's not to love?

Infinite

[840high]

41. Thank you for reality.

[MrMickeysMom]

42. Thank you for appreciating reality

I noticed your post count at the time of my posting was "666", and I'm hoping to join in with that mark of the beastly truth.

[riqster]

67. For all the people who said this thread was unnecessary.

Thanks for proving the OP's point.

[jazzimov]

79. I only got through the first few points on that list

and since they were total BS or not related to Obama, I gave up:

-Citizens United = unlimited donations and campaign spending by corporations and rich businessmen. $2 billion spent upon this election cycle. Mussolini's definition of Fascism says it should be called corporatism, because it is a merger of state and corporate power.

SCOTUS, nothing to do with Obama and nothing Obama could do.

-No wall street regulation or punishment, same with the banks

Dodd-Frank, there have been arrests and prosecutions.

-A multiple hundred-fold disparity in income between CEOs and workers, which remains unchanged even a year after OWS

Which Obama is trying to address with Living Wage, but Republicans in Congress are blocking.

-Drones used for summary execution of foreigners and US citizens abroad suspected of terrorism or terrorist ties
-Hundreds of children killed by these drones in more than five countries

As opposed to cruise missiles, which have much more "collateral damage".

-The Bush-era FISA warrantless wireless wiretapping bill was just signed into five more years of activity.

The bill was passed at the end of Bush's term BECAUSE of warrantless wiretapping to put a stop to it.

I gave up after that.

[Arctic Dave]

34. Another one of these post. Shouldn't this be in the BOG?

Nobody can get us in here!

[sheshe2]

37. Are you telling me that I am not

allowed to post on GD!?

Are you censoring me on a Democratic Site?

[Arctic Dave]

39. By all means, post in the GD.

However, let's just Obama is not bush but he sure is pretty darn similar. He is the best repug to run for their team since raygun.

[sheshe2]

40. Ah yes, pretty darn similar.

I do believe that you are living in a bubble.

Good Night.

[MrMickeysMom]

44. ...

[MrMickeysMom]

43. ...

[sheshe2]

53. ...

[liberal_at_heart]

74. you are free to praise Obama all you want on GD, and we are equally free to criticize him on GD.

If you don't want to hear that criticism then you should post in the BOG.

[sheshe2]

76. Aaah another move to censor me to the BOG.

Must be because you don't want to hear the truth.

Sad that.

[liberal_at_heart]

78. I say you are free to praise him all you want on GD and you turn that into I want to censor you?

wow. I have disagreed with a lot of what you have said in the past, but I think this is the most ridiculous post I've ever seen from you. Here is something else we are free to do. Ignore. bye bye.

[progressoid]

49. Of the 16 you posted, at least 6 are misleading or inaccurate.

I can't get the link to work to view the other 84.

[bowens43]

51. this blame the republicans for obama's failures bullshit is getting old

Obama at best is an ineffectual leader leader who isn't up to the task.

Better than Bush? Of course but that's a pretty low bar......

[sheshe2]

52. bashing the President is getting old! IMHO!

[MrMickeysMom]

54. Here's a dollar

________
| $ |
________

Perhaps it'll buy you a more humble opinion.

[sheshe2]

55. Here's a .01 cent.

Have fun!

[MrMickeysMom]

57. I don't think they make that denomination...

Anyway, you might have better luck to wonder why so many are disappointed in our President. If that means that the world has come to an end for the people you thought should believe as you do, because they're on DU, then just say grace over it and carry on.

[sheshe2]

59. Nope, I don't wonder at all.

You hate this President, nothing he does is ever good enough for you, nor will it ever be.

He could lay the proverbial golden egg, ya'll will hop on and say it wasn't big enough or didn't shine enough.

Haters are going to hate.

~ Peace to us all.

[MrMickeysMom]

60. That didn't make very much sense...

First, you don't really know me, nor my opinions well enough to lump me into some group. You refer to that group as "haters" who hate him, only to WISH PEACE FOR ALL? I need apparently need to make peace with your misinformed opinion of me.

Start with your own willingness to distinguish persons who are disappointed with Obams to those who "hate" him, like the Tea Baggers. That would be grand.

[sheshe2]

61. Yes I do wish Peace for all,

that does not mean that you have to sign on to it.

You are right, the tea baggers and I will add the GOP as a whole hate this President with an unholy passion.

There also is a hell of a lot of hate for him on DU. Ridiculed at every turn. Never ever praised for what he has accomplished with a bagger/gop congress.

[Amonester]

101. +1000

I don't come here often anymore.

I'm so disgusted at the daily arm-chair hate that I will let the star expire.

[sheshe2]

102. Thank you Amonester,

I know what you mean.

I have not been here very long, less than a year. I read DU for a long time, never thought to join. There are a lot of good people here that counter the negatives. However it is hard to see the loathing, it hurts.

Amonester, keep stopping in if you can.

sheshe2

[Cha]

56. Yeah, because you and your cohorts need to blame Pres Obama for EVERYTHING.

Please proceed.. your venom means jack shit on the scale of what President Obama has accomplished and will continue to accomplish without imput from the whiny internet dwellers.

[MrMickeysMom]

58. Thanks for permission. You may proceed as well...

[sheshe2]

64. You as well...

[url=http://postimage.org/][img][/img][/url]

[Cha]

66. Yeah, she.. too bad..

they don't seem to be dealing with it very well.



http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/10/1222472/-The-Obama-Logo-in-stained-glass#

[sheshe2]

69. Sad for them, I really am.

Cha!

[Cha]

71. Damn Straight I'll share it!

Last edited Sat Aug 3, 2013, 02:03 AM - Edit history (1)

And anything else that's Good News coming from the Obama Admin ..in spite of all the Obstruction from GOPricks and those who defend them and need to blame the President because that's what they fuckng do.

Edit: I already used my quota for the day..

[Cha]

65. Don't guzzle all your red koolaid at once.

[geek tragedy]

73. No, what gets old are so-called Democrats who are afraid to blame Republicans for the havoc

they wreak.

Obama cannot tax, and he cannot spend.

[sheshe2]

77. When did McConnell say he wanted to make Obama a ‘one-term president’?

Thanks geek tragedy...they can't handle the truth.

“When I first came into office, the head of the Senate Republicans said, ‘my number one priority is making sure president Obama’s a one-term president.’ Now, after the election, either he will have succeeded in that goal or he will have failed at that goal.”

— President Obama, interview on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” recorded on Sept. 12, 2012, and aired on Sept. 23
“It was no surprise, because the senator from Kentucky, who just spoke, announced at the beginning, four years ago, exactly what his strategy would be. He said, his number-one goal was to make sure that Barack Obama was a one-term president.”

— Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), on the Senate floor, Sept. 21, 2012
“Ed Rendell, who has criticized the president (objecting, for example, to the Obama campaign's attack on private equity), also argues that Obama has been constrained by an unprecedented obduracy in his Republican opposition. ‘I can't ever recall a newly elected president being faced with the leader of the other party's caucus saying “Our No. 1 priority is to make this president a one-term president,”’ says Rendell, citing the remark made by Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, that exemplified the fierce partisanship that has attended Obama's tenure. ‘That McConnell would say that in the first nine months of Barack Obama's tenure is absolutely stunning, disgraceful, disgusting — you name the term.’”
— Peter J. Boyer, writing in Newsweek, Sept. 10, 2012

Clearly, a theme has emerged among Democrats: Republicans were so determined to thwart President Obama’s agenda that the Senate Minority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, even announced from day one that he was determined to make Obama a one-term president.

The timing of McConnell’s statement obviously makes a difference. In the Democratic narrative, the top GOP senator signaled early on he had no intention of cooperating with the new president

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/when-did-mcconnell-say-he-wanted-to-make-obama-a-one-term-president/2012/09/24/79fd5cd8-0696-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html

[Jamaal510]

92. +1

[JaneyVee]

62. K and fucking R!

[Sunlei]

70. even before he was elected O. stayed at the table working for the people.

Bush ran from the meeting room, his admin, screamed blame at each other.

McCain sat there like a deer caught in the headlights. Obama and republican puppetBushes-They're still as different as night and day.

[MFrohike]

82. Oh man

That's a list all right. Granted, it's pretty non-specific and mostly pointless, but it's a list. There is one difference between them I can name and I hate to do it because it favors the man I consider to be hands down the worst president in American history. The big name criminals of Bush's early economic crisis were prosecuted and he signed a bill that contained criminal sanctions against those who would commit the same acts. The same is not true of Obama. He has refused to prosecute anyone connected with mortgage backed securities and he signed an extremely complex law that amounts to a jobs program for big name law firms.

Any first-year law student could have made a cogent case against the fraudulent practices that led to the crash. Contrary to the president's claim, it's not that immoral behavior was not illegal, it's that the relevant authorities abdicated their responsibility.

[great white snark]

86. BIG K&R for the weekenders.

Sad this is even needed on a Democratic forum but thank you for doing it.

And as I keep reminding...this vitriol does not come from within our party. Democrats support and respect you sheshe2.

[Scurrilous]

90. Thanks.

K & R

[tabasco]

97. I don't see "established worldwide utopia" on that list!

[Scurrilous]

100. Boink.