No "maybe" to it: You're viewing this through biased glasses.

sounds like somebody needs to call the wambulance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... - whoopsee!!

Sounds like you need a ba-ba.

"So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 5 months -- so you'll have three years and seven months to come up with an answer."

You mean seven years and seven months because you Rush Limbaugh wanna be thugs don't have anything on our boy in office. He will outsmart, outwit, and CRUSH anything you can throw at him. Plain and simple my friend, plain and simple...

I speak American, Canadian, and a little British.

Me too francais. I also speak Australian, New Zealand, and Alabaman. Well, I can get by in Alabama.

The forecast if we continued George's strategy was TRIPLE the debt. Of course, all the blame for our current economics is what Obama has done in 6 months.

Really, a teleprompter is an indicator of intelligence? A Magna Cum Laude student against a C average cheerleader isn't a good way to measure? That's rich.

This one again?  They really *HAVE* got nothing...

Well I'll add One to this .........Don't forget that the Telepromter in chief  actually thanked himself for being there. If this had happend to Bush you would have never herd the end of it...IMHO

http://news.sky.com/skynews...

And the special Olympics Remark

Don't forget that the Telepromter in chief  actually thanked himself for being there

No, he didn't. 

You guys don't get the concept of a "joke," do you?

The real irony here is that off your list, some of these things really happened while many didn't, or are mis-represented. If the right could agree on sticking to facts, instead of spouting myths and fantasies invented by Faux News and the right wing media group (the ones that have a monopoly on talk radio and quill pens) then there might be something to worry about here.

Instead, you have a national leadership that is intent only on tearing Obama down, even in the absence of anything (ideas or personnel) to replace him ( http://www.usnews.com/artic... ).

My reaction to your list? To the items which are true: they are mildly disturbing; to the items which are misreported: there you go again;  to the items which are patently false: wow, you mean you can still sell this stuff?

wow, you mean you can still sell this stuff?

He can offer it for sale.

Ain't nobody buying it anymore. 

I think the Joke is the way the left Blows all this off. And Random...."No, he didn't" really your sticking with that.....weak ,very weak.

Think it was St. Patty's day if I recall. But don't take my word, please check it out yourself.

Gump........out

I think the Joke is the way the left Blows all this off.

Because most of it isn't true?

And Random...."no he didn't" really your sticking with that.....weak ,very weak.

Because it's true?

Facts have a liberal bias, I know...

I think they're giving him the benefit of the doubt because he JUST started.  Give him two more years and they'll turn on him just like they did bush.  Because if I remember correctly it wasn't until later in his miserable second term that they started to really turn on him.  During the whole 9/11 thing he was seen as SUCH hero.

Shrub was declining in popularity before 9/11, which gave him a huge boost.  (The stem cell fiasco was one reason).  He shot up to like 90 percent popularity, then pithed it all away with one boneheaded move after another. 

It wasn't until the second term that some of those boneheaded moves came to light.

Just like obama is slipping in the polls now.

Yes, Nancy, as every president has slipped in the polls after the post-election "high" wears off and the real work begins.  Obama's mistakes so far have been mostly sins of omission--stuff he hasn't done yet in just the first six months of a 48-month term.

The difference is that Obama's second term will *NOT* see a 60-point decline from his high point like Shrub's, and he'll end his eight years roughly where Bill Clinton did (above Reagan, in other words.)

"Obama's numbers are also about the same as George W. Bush's at this point in his presidency as well, which we'll examine in detail in a bit. "

 http://www.huffingtonpost.c...

What will obamas 9/11 be?  Or will he have one?

Oh, and since this came from huff'n'stuff what will you have to say about my "source"

What will obamas 9/11 be?  Or will he have one?

He won't have a 9/11.

He won't have a Katrina (in the sense of mismanaging a natural disaster.)

He won't have a mortgage crisis (aside from the one that's already here.)

Obama's approval is about 60 percent.  Bush's at this time, was ten points lower.  At his lowest second-term point Bill Clinton wasn't that far down. 

Shrub peaked shortly after allowing the 9/11 attacks to occur, and it was almost straight-line downhill since then.

You don't read charts very well do you?  Not even huff'n'stuffs?

RE: 9/11..you're taking it too literally.  It's sort of  like what will be Obamas Waterloo and if you don't think anyhting could happen to boost his ratings then I guess you have a crystal ball that tells you his time in office will be totally uneventful.  You control hurricanes now too?  Or all national disasters? 

Nancy, by June 2001 Shrub was at 50 percent.  He bounced up slightly in July.

.

It's sort of  like what will be Obamas Waterloo

The Repubwhigans say it's health care reform.  I'm betting Obama is going to play Wellington to the GOP's Napoleon.

No, I don't control hurricanes.  But Obama controls FEMA now. 

I don't think there will be a single event like 9/11 to mistakenly increase Obama's ratings the way Shrub's were boosted.  I think he'll be mostly between 60 and 45 percent approval for both of his terms.

Everybody drops (except Clinton.)

http://online.wsj.com/publi...

Oh Nancy,

It's clear you don't know anything about politics. You haven't realized that Obama's rule is the best this country has to offer. You are just scared because he doesn't "look" like most presidents you've seen in the past.

What's clear is that we don't agree about politics.

We don't have to agree.  But I think by the end of the first term, it will become clear that *NOTHING* the Repubs said about Obama was the truth, and that he's clearly a better choice than *ANYONE* they put up as a sacrificial lamb.

I *WISH* he were more socialist, for one thing...

"If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?"

Do you realize that the Queen actually asked for the Ipod? I also might add that in order to put anything on it at all the whole thing would have to be erased. 

Can't we just point back to the *LAST* time this drivel was posted?  'Twasn't all that long ago.

At least Obama's not giving foreign heads of state creepy, unwanted backrubs.  The iPod's a *REAL* step upwards for our country...

Yeah, cause the left NEVER dredges up the past, no matter how trivial.

You're wasting your time, cas...the diehards on here will never see the hypocrisy in ANYTHING a fellow socialst or facist does. Bummer for them that there are enough honest liberals(not the socialists and facists who forgot what it meant to be a true liberal)who ARE starting to see the huge problems with this administration.

We'll see.

Yeah, cause the left NEVER dredges up the past, no matter how trivial.

And the right does--no matter how trivial.

Even if they have to lie to do it.

 If George Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

Heavens no. But dancing with a sword would be o.k.

Interestingly, when I visited the Nixon Library, the White House loaned a display of foreign gifts. Some of them were mind boggling. A docent explained to me that any foreign gift to the President valued over $350 (in Nixon's time it was $200) belongs to the American people. Under that amount, the President can keep it as a personal gift. I don't know how Brits do things, but the i-pod could have been meant as a personal gift from the First Couple to the queen. In any case, the queen's staff was asked about the appropriateness of the i-pod beforehand. 

Since all republican name-callers know this already, I'm just trying to inform all these elitist, arrogant, socialist, pink-o,un-American, tree-hugging, atheistic, baby-killing, anti-gun, pro-illegal immigrant, dope smoking, liberals. 

Actually, Bush bowed to a head of state's spouse. That wasn't a big deal either. Especially considering that the Saudis got a lot more than a nod from the Bushies.

casooner90:  I'm not going to blame my comment on my evil twin; I'll take responsibility for it myself.  I like your list.  It is very satisfying to see it.  I'd rather have a president in the office of President than I would a would-be messiah who's leading us down the path to destruction, hell-in-a-handbasket style.  IMO. 

Okay, you may like or dislike the list and that's fine as to each to his / her own.  But, you have to be angry (just as much as me or more) on how this president is putting this massive burden on the backs of our future generations.  His many bail outs and social programs will have to be paid for some how and if you think you're exempt fromt it, you are sadly mistaken.  If you think the rich ought to pay for it because 'they can afford to', you're either a socialist or a communist.   Seriously, you may love this guy, but can't you see the burden he is putting on all of us and our kids?  Wake up and smell the coffee.  Get over your honeymoon and see what this guy is doing to our country.

Casooner, where was your anger when the previous administration blew the budget surplus left by the Clinton administration? This burdening of the younger generation didn't just start 6 months ago you know. You're a bit late to the game if your only concern were truly the burden on future generations.

MM, you're just another racist stirring up sand to divert the issue.

The Big Zero's 9/11 -- or should I say Waterloo? -- may come in a few month if a fellow Democrat from Hawaii has his way with a bill to force the state to do something that the guy won't do himself: release his birth certificate. Gotta thank the Hawaiian senator; we need more Democrats like him who get it: http://www.tcotreport.com/e...

And we all know the left never lies.  Right-o Pinocchio.

Shwaine, I do belive and live by fiscal responsibility and I belive my government ought to practice this as they are living off of yours and my taxes.  With the past administration, they were fighting wars we approved (yes, the citizens of this country approved as there was an overwhelming majority supporting the war effort post 9/11) and they had to deal with Katrina (which could have been minimized if some mayor didn't lock up all the school buses).  Funny how the press coverage on Afganistan and the daily US soldier death on the front page is non existent under the current administration.  Past administration did blow the budget (and in some irresponsible manner), but I stil believe they did what we asked - whether directly (through senate resolution) or indirectly (by consuming petroleum irresponsibly by buying big gas guzzlers).  I know, your argument is probably something along the lines of WMD.  And I'll say what killed the Kurds.

Pax, you go right on believing that, and the transubstantiation fairy tale.  Neither is true, and neither will get you to the nonexistent whites-only heaven you've been lied to about.

I have news for you Casooner, a tax system IS a redistribtution of wealth. A progressive tax system simply insures that the middle class, who sustain the nation, is viable, and that the rich don't get richer while the poor get poorer. (See Mexico.) If you want to call that communism, then so are traffic lights.

And the 4% increase that Obama proposes for high end earners, is still lower than 3/4ths of the century long history of the progressive tax system. Most of you commy shouters don't even realize that your taxes will decrease under the proposed tax rate change. If you think he's simply lying, that's another story.

So if Obama is a commy, what does that say about war time Presidents who taxed the rich at a 90% rate?  Why is it that the last time we had that rate, the nation prospered with a surplus?

As for health care, why do you think it's communistic? It's no different than Medicare, it's no different than Social Security. It will not affect you if you already have a good plan. If it's a communistic proposal, then most of our democratic allies are already commies.

Ann Coulter only cares about $$$$$. She knows her niche as a combative woman conservative and hero to rich white males. Yeah she's a celebrity, but so is Paris Hilton. Her job is to stoke the fire, and make big money with her hate spewing rhetoric. But that's the beauty of America, anybody can get rich.

And....... I wonder where Saddam got his chemical weapons?

Ronald Reagan removed Iraq from the State Dept.'s list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. That left the door open for American companies such as Alolac International and Phillips to provide Saddam with thiodigycol. He also got chemicals from Germans and from Singapore, not just us.

In other words, since the Iranians were our enemies, then the enemy of our enemy must be our friend, as long as it serves our purposes. If chemical weapons were the reason we went after Saddam, why did we give every other despot in the world a free pass? That includes North Korea, who DOES have nukes and DOES have missles better than Scuds, and also have big artillery pieces pointed at 30,000 or our troops from only 30 miles away.

Yeah, the alliance game!!!

Who funded Israel who funded South Africa so that they could keep aparthied, a nuclear bomb program, and colonialism sub-saharran Africa?

That's right, the US!!!