Obama is full of it

Aside from the things people have pointed out, you're going beyond judging the actions of our president. You're nitpicking every move he makes and look for a reason to not like him.So what if he went to Copenhagen? Other world leaders were there, too. If Chicago got the Olympics, Obama would have gained very little politically. If Chicago lost (which it did), then we would be seeing people like you nitpicking little things like this to not like the man. There was no personal gain for him in either cases.Personally, I've been cursing the Olympics Committee up and down ever since this morning for not choosing Chicago. Especially when private investors have invested almost $100 million just to bit for the Olympics. That's $100 million down the drain for private investors. Is this a joke or are you genuinely clueless?Added by editCursed are those who voted against Chicago, for they shalt not have this angry American's good will. Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

I happen to be a cheap bastard. Other countries can throw away their money if they want. My country is now $100 million poorer.

I want to go back to something. See, you throw out statements like these from time to time, which is why (and I freely admit, crucify me if you want) I don't have a lot of respect for you, riverrat. You're a fine guy, I'm sure. But from time to time, you let it slip that you don't really know the facts. What scares me is you are very strongly opinionated about these things based on fiction.It's like the people who protested in DC about czars. These people, when asked by reporters, had absolutely no clue what these czars were, but since (according to their logic) Obama appointed these czars they must be bad people. These people were clueless that Bush also had czars.Right now as it stands, you are blinded by hatred of the liberal position so much that you're just actively looking for reasons to hate them, never mind the facts you throw out as your reasons are wrong.Rat, I highly encourage you to be less opinionated about things until you have a better grasp of the facts surrounding the issues. This is hard, I know. People have high opinion of themselves, me included. But try for once to step back and be less angry. You might learn something.But all else fails, at least consider your relationship with your children. Don't end up like my father and I. My father has very strong opinions about a lot of things. My problem with him is he's wrong on virtually all of the facts he believes in. I respect him as my father, but I certainly don't respect his opinions. He would even make up facts on a whim to give the illusion that he knows all.When I was little, I asked my father how those orange lights on those wooden construction blockades light up. My father told me that the "energy" emitted by the cars driving by gave these lights the energy to light up. That stuck with me for a while. When I was in college, it dawned upon me to rethink a lot of what my father told me. One night at about 3 AM or so, I went to my car and drove to a local construction site. I stole one of those things and brought it back to my place. Opened it up and found batteries.Your children will grow up one day. That's all I gotta say about that.

As was pointed out to you earlier, Mayor Daley pushed for Chicago's bid long before Obama was ever on the scene. The committee voted to input about $500 million into this thing before Obama was ever on the scene.By the time Obama became president, Chicago was already THE American city bidding for the Olympics. I still don't understand why you keep insisting that Obama "chose" Chicago, implying Obama was flexing his presidential muscle on this one. Here is the part that tells me you're nitpicking and criticizing every little thing. If it's the tax money paying for the Olympics, it's a waste of tax dollars. If it's paid for by private industries, it's corruption.Again, it appears to me you're just throwing things out randomly hoping to make a hit.I admit that I'm rather disappointed Chicago didn't get the Olympics, and I'm speaking as someone that's about to move into the city so I've also been considering all the headaches that would come with such an event. But now that it won't be coming to Chicago, my life will be a lot easier in the years to come.

Like it or not, riverrat, it takes time in a democracy to do anything. Absolute dictatorship regimes get things done a lot quicker. Perhaps you should move to one of those countries? You should sit down and read the constitution some time. It's a wonderful document that limits presidential powers as well as any other branch of government.Again, that's why we're loosely called a democracy. We debate, we vote, we debate some more, we vote some more, etc. A president can't just do anything on a whim. He's got to bring up the issue, push for it, let congress fight it out, push for it some more, let congress fight it out some more, and pick up the pieces that made it through.Sit back and relax. He's not even a year into his presidency. Again, a friend of mine said this earlier this year. It took 8 years for Bush to burn down Rome. You know what I saw from the conservative side in February? The same argument you're giving now. Then I saw it again in June. Really, just admit that you don't like the guy and get it over with. Don't beat around the bush.Added by edit.Of all the criticisms, I haven't seen a single "liberal" media quoting Obama when he said these issues won't be solved in just a few months. He said this over and over during the campaign. It's only people like you who probably slept through the campaign period and showed up to vote on the last day think he promised to get everything done in a couple months.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

And ergo this is an issue that Obama is being attacked by both conservatives and liberals alike.Liberals want us to pull out of Afghanistan because of liberal reasons. Conservatives have been screaming about this just to be anti-Obama.

Statistically speaking that is.WHERE ARE THE OBAMA SCANDALS? – Sabato's Crystal Ball

quote:

---

Where Are the Obama Scandals?

​

Brendan Nyhan, Guest Columnist May 26th, 2011

​

One of the least remarked upon aspects of the Obama presidency has been the lack of scandals. Since Watergate, presidential and executive branch scandal has been an inescapable feature of the American presidency, but the current administration has not yet suffered a major scandal, which I define as a widespread elite perception of wrongdoing. What happened, and what are the odds that the administration’s streak will continue?

​

Obama has been extremely fortunate: My research (PDF) on presidential scandals shows that few presidents avoid scandal for as long as he has. In the 1977-2008 period, the longest that a president has gone without having a scandal featured in a front-page Washington Post article is 34 months — the period between when President Bush took office in January 2001 and the Valerie Plame scandal in October 2003. Obama has already made it almost as long despite the lack of a comparable event to the September 11 terrorist attacks. Why?

​

Obama should be highly vulnerable to scandal given his standing with Republicans. My research identifies presidential approval among opposition party identifiers as a key risk factor. The reason is that discontent among the opposition’s base creates demand for negative news about the president, encouraging opposition legislators and members of the news media to promote allegations of misconduct. As Figure 1 illustrates, Obama has quickly become unpopular among members of the public who identify as Republicans, following a similar trajectory to Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton (who both suffered significant first-term scandals). By contrast, the September 11 attacks provided George W. Bush (who is omitted from Figure 1) with a massive approval boost that helped protect him from scandal for more than two years afterward.

---

Read the rest at the site.