Obama's Promise For Transparency Nothing But A Transparent Lie

obama.jpg

President Barack Obama, who vowed to bring a “new standard of openness” to the White House, is proving to be nothing but a transparent liar.

On Monday, he barred photojournalists from covering two fundraisers in Los Angeles; one where tickets sold for $38,500, the other where tickets sold for $5,000, according to Keith Koffler, who publishes White House Dossier.

Today, he attended a $7,500-a-plate lunch and local photojournalists and reporters were barred from attending. Only a handful of Washington D.C. reporters were allowed to attend, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

Koffler, a former White House reporter, pointed out that Obama didn’t have a problem with photojournalists covering a visit to Roscoe’s House of Chicken and Waffles in West Los Angeles where he ordered a meal for $8.90 because that would reinforce his image of being a man of the people.

The only problem is, nobody is buying that anymore, which is why the Occupy Wall Street movement has spread so rapidly around the country.

Most of those activists voted for him, giving him a chance to provide the change he promised. But like so many politicians before him, he reneged on those promises.

And now the people who voted for him are left with nothing but their own voices and the power they muster in numbers.

Last weekend while in Atlanta, I stopped by the Occupy Atlanta encampment and interviewed a homeless man who pointed out the hypocrisy in panhandling laws that make it illegal for poor people to ask for money while it is perfectly legal for rich politicians to hold these overpriced fundraisers.

The Obama administration is also proposing a revision to the Freedom of Information Act, which would allow federal agencies to lie to citizens and reporters seeking certain records, telling them the records don’t exist, according to The Daily Caller.

In March, a Wall Street Journal columnist said that Obama was even less transparent than George W. Bush, who was criticized as being one of the most secretive presidents in history.

But somehow, Obama was able to convince OMB Watch, a non-profit group that supposedly oversees the transparency process in government, into giving him an award for his transparency.

Obama accepted the award behind closed doors.

PolitiFact has compiled a list of campaign promises that Obama kept as well as a list of campaign promises he broke.

Comments

Looking forward to not voting for this guy.

I believe in a two-term limit for politicians: One in office, one in jail.

Well, well, well now!! PERHAPS some of you folks on the left side of the political spectrum are starting to see through this fraudster! When you don't have any answers its a lot easier to hide behind the curtain while you push buttons and pull levers but guess what? Little Toto is on the job and the curtain gets pulled away so EVERYBODY who got sucked in by this "Hope & Change" con artist can see him for what he really is. That is, if they have the courage to look!!

Agreed. I started disliking Obama weeks into his presidency and eventually saw him for who he really is.

But he sure did dupe us during election time, and pretty much used the number one rule from Campaigning 101, which is do and say whatever it takes to win office.

Carlos Miller - Photography is Not a Crime
Pixiq Expert

I voted for him and have no regrets. McCain was not any better.

He asked for a chance and we gave it to him and he turned his back on the voters.

So he has nobody to blame but himself.

Carlos..

You voted for him and have NO regrets..!!..?

I thought you were smarter than that, but obviously....

Rail Car Fan

Carlos Miller - Photography is Not a Crime
Pixiq Expert

McCain/Palin would have been better? LOL

No, they would not have been. I say that as a member of the Executive Committee of my county's Republican Party. With Obama in office, the Republicans have found some semblance of a backbone on some issues. Had McCain gotten in, they would have rolled over in favor of big government, McCain's favorite kind of government. God knows how expanded the ridiculous wars would be under McCain.

You have a good point, Carlos. I really had to hold my nose HARD when I voted for that pair. UG!!

So who is you idol now Carlos? If Palin and McCain were no good, who is your favorite Republican? lol.

sitions were forced to go underground and keep the membership secret.)

Administrations, both Democrat and Republican, come and go-but the C.F.R. lingers on. This is why the more things seem to change, the more they remain the same. The fix is in at the top, where the same coterie of Insiders, bent on control of the world, runs the show. As Professor Quigley admits:

"There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international… network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists

or any other groups, and frequently does so." [Emphasis added.)

Yes, the Insiders have no aversion to working with the Communists whose ostensible goal is to destroy them. While the Insiders are serving champagne and caviar to their guests in their summer mansions at Newport. or entertaining other members of the social elite aboard their yachts, their agents are out enslaving and murdering people. And you are next on their list.

Clearly, the Chicago Tribune's editorial of December 9, 1950, on the C.F.R. still applies:

"The members of council [On Foreign Relations] are persons of much more than average influence in their community. They have used the prestige that their wealth, their social position, and their education have given them to lead their country toward bankruptcy and military debacle. They should look at their hands. There is blood on them-the dried blood of the last war and the fresh blood of the present one [the Korean War] (HUMAN SACRIFICE)

It goes without saying that the C.F.R.'s hands are bloodier now with the gore of 50,000 Americans in Vietnam. Shamefully the Council has succeeded in promoting, as American policy, the shipment of American aid and trade to the East European arsenal of the Viet Cong for the killing of our sons in the field.

It should not be surprising to learn that there is on the international level an organizational equivalent of the C.F.R. This group calls itself the Bilderbergers. If scarcely one American in a thousand has any familiarity with the C.F.R., it is doubtful that one in five thousand has any knowledge of the Bilderbergers. Again, this is not accidental.

The strange name of this group is taken from the site of the first meeting in May, 1954-the Hotel de Bilderberg-in Oostebeek Holland. The man who created the Bilderbergers is His Royal Highness Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. The Prince is an important figure in Royal Dutch Petroleum (Shell Oil) and the Societe General de Belgique, a huge conglomerate cartel with worldwide holdings. The Bilderbergers meet once-or sometimes twice-a year. Those in attendance include leading political and financial figures from the United States and Western Europe. Prince Bernhard makes no effort to hide the fact tbat the ultimate goal of the Bilderbergers is a world government. In the meantime, while the "new world order" is being built, the Bilderbergers coordinate the efforts of the European and American power elites.

Prince Bernhard's counterpart among the American Bilderbergers is David Rockefeller, chairman of the board of the C.F.R., whose economic base is the giant Chase Manhattan Bank and Standard Oil. Among the other Bilderbergers from the world of ultra-high finance are Baron Edmund de Rothschild of the House of Rothschild, C. Douglas Dillon (C.F.R.) of Dillon Read & Co., Robert McNamara of the World Bank, Sir Eric Roll of S.G. War burg & Co., Ltd., Pierce Paul Schweitzer of the International Monetary Fund, and George Ball (C.F.R.) of Lehman Brothers.

Not everyone who attends one of the Bilderbergers' secret meetings is an Insider, but only men of the Left are allowed to attend the private meetings following the general sessions. The avowedly Socialist Parties of Europe are well represented … another example of the tie-in between the Insiders of high finance and the ostensible leaders of the proletariat. Bilderberg policy is not planned by those who attend the conferences, but by the elite steering committee of Insiders composed of 24 Europeans and 15 Americans. Past and present Americans of the Bilderberger Steering Committee include George W. Ball, Gardner Cowles, John H. Ferguson, Henry J. Heinz 11, Robert D. Murphy, David Rockefeller, Shepard Stone, James D. Zellerbach, Emelo G. Collado, Arthur H. Dean, Gabriel Hauge, C. D. Jackson, George Nebolsine, Dean Rusk and General Walter Bedell Smith. Those who adhere to the accidental theory of history will claim that it is sheer coincidence that every single one of those named as past and present members of the Bilderberger Steering Committee is or was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

The Bilderberger Advisory Committee forms an even more inner circle'' than the Steering Committee. Americans on the Advisory Committee include Joseph E. Johnson, Dean Rusk, Arthur H. Dean, George Nebolsine, John S. Coleman, General Walter Bedell Smith and Henry J. Heinz II. Again, all are members of the C.F.R.

One would assume (that is, if one had not read this book) that when the world's leading parliamentarians and international tycoons meet to discuss the planning of their various nations' foreign policies, that the news hawks from papers and televisionland would be screaming to high heaven that such an event held in secret makes a mockery of the democratic process. One might expect Walter Cronkite to be thundering in wrath about an elite clique meeting to plan our lives; or the New York Times editorialists to be pounding their smoking typewriters, fuming about "the public's right to know." But, of course, the landscape painters merely brush the Bilderbergers right out of existence and focus the public's attention on something like the conditions in the prisons or coke bottles littering the highways. Since the Bilderbergers are a group of the Left (or, as the Liberals in the media might say, but don't, "a group of progressives") they are allowed to go on in peace and quiet planning for 1984. The fact that there is heavy Rockefeller (Chase Manhattan Bank and C.F.R.) influence in the media might also have something to do with the fact that while everybody has heard of, say, The John Birch Society (and almost always in a derogatory manner from the Eastern Establishment media), practically nobody has heard of the Bilderbergers.

Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, head of the secret, one world Bilderberger movement, confers with President Nixon. A former Nazi SS storm trooper ("We had a lot of fun"), Bernhard now works with the Rothschilds and Communists to promote a World Super State of the elite. Bernhard holds yearly secret meetings with high U. S. officials, bankers and industrialists to map plans for merging the U. S. and the Soviet Union into a world government. After last meeting, Nixon devalued the dollar and opened up trade with Red China.

Edmond and Guy de Rothschild, leaders of the French Rothschild clan. The Rothschilds are closely connected with Prince Bernhard in business (Royal Dutch Shell) and in the building of a one world super government with the Soviets. Time of Dec. 20, 1963, says of Guy: "Guy is every inch a Rothschild. He personifies much of what the family name stands for … He is a friend and confidante of some of France's politicians… Most of all, he is dedicated to enlarging the fortune of his bank… Guy heads a versatile clan of modern day Rothschilds." Edmond, reputedly the richest of the French Rothschilds, is worth $500 million personally, according to estimates.

As this is written, there have been 29 Bilderberger meetings to date. They usually last three days and are held in remote, but plush quarters. The participants are housed in one location and are protected by a thorough security network. Decisions are reached, resolutions adopted, plans of action initiated, but only Bilderbergers ever know for sure what occurred. We must assume that these people did not congregate merely to discuss their golf scores. The press, naturally, is not allowed to be present, although occasionally a brief press conference is held at the end of the meeting at which time the news media are given in very general terms the Bilderberger version of what was discussed. Why all the secrecy if there is really nothing to hide? Why do the Ford, Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations finance the meetings if they are not important? Yes, why?

The most recent meeting took place at Laurance Rockefeller's Woodstock Inn at Woodstock, Vermont, April 23, 24, 25, 1971. Apparently the only newspaper to carry a substantial story on the meeting was the Rutland, Vermont, Herald, whose reporter could acquire only sketchy information about what the meeting was all about. The April 20, 1971 issue of the Herald reported:

"A rather tight lid of secrecy was being kept on the conference… A closed-door meeting was held in Woodstock last week to brief a handful of local officials on some phases of the conference. One participant of the meeting insisted Monday that the officials were told the meeting would be an 'international peace conference.' However, other reliable sources said the conference will deal with international finance…

The Woodstock Inn will apparently be sealed up like Fort Knox… No press coverage will be allowed, with the exception of issuing a statement at the close of the meeting on Sunday."

When Prince Bernhard arrived at Boston's Logan Airport, he did admit to reporters that the subject of the conference would be the "change in the world-role of the United States." Isn't it nice to have changes in America's role in the world decided upon by Bernhard, Rothschild and Rockefeller? There is real democracy in action, as they say. Present at the scene to carry back orders to Mr. Nixon was C.F.R.-Rockefeller errand boy, the President's Number One advisor on foreign affairs, Henry Kissinger. Shortly after the Woodstock meeting, two ominous and "role changing" events occurred: Henry Kissinger went to Peking and arranged for the acceptance of Red China as a member of the family of trading nations; and an international monetary crisis developed after which the dollar was devalued. As the British statesman and Rothschild confidante Benjamin Disraeli wrote in Coningsby: "So you see, my dear Coningsby, that the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes."

I'm sure I'm not the only one who skipped right by your post, you need to be more succinct.

I can't do nothing but laugh at this one!

You know what you do when you want a President to perform the changes he promisses? You make Republicans have the House majority! There you go, bye bye Obama's wings!

And believe me, OWS it's killing Republicans, not Democrats. Are you a rich guy Carlos? If so I understand it all now.

Just sayin'

What was the excuse the for the first two years?

OWS is a noisy sideshow with a mostly white college crowd. Their lack of significant political or life experience is showing.

Many OWS sites are have been broken up in the last 24 hours. Many people are openly wondering what role the Obama administration had in coordinating the raids.

OWS is a noisy sideshow with a mostly white college crowd. Their lack of significant political or life experience is showing.

Really? I've heard the crowds in New York are pretty diverse.

http://www.theroot.com/multimedia/video-diversity-occupy-wall-street

As for their being young, well, I'd rather hang with the OWS kids fighting for the 99%, than hang with the fat, white, old, racist teabaggers, fighting for the... what were they fighting for, anyways? The only signs I can remember are Obama dressed up as a witch doctor with a bone through his nose, Obama with a Hitler mustache, Obama as the Joker, and, my personal favorite, "Keep your government hands off my medicare."

Many people are openly wondering what role the Obama administration had in coordinating the raids.

Whoa... the teabagger in charge of Tea Party Nation says Obama is secretly behind OWS! http://bit.ly/n7leaB

And according to you, he's also coordinating raids against OWS!

Obama must be playing some eleven-dimensional chess with our minds!

Tim said it wall!

You expected Obama to build in 2 years what Bush destroyed in 8?

And on OWS being young, are you amazed at that? They are the ones going out of school not having a job, not being able to pursue their dreams, not being able to simply pay for their own house? What are your doubts on this?

Ans what is your point? That we all stay at home while the world sinks?

Oh well, not going to change minds here I'm sure. Whatever.

That's right. Protest vote for Romney or Perry or any of the other loons that the Right is offering up. That will show the Democrats. It will also cost you your Social Security, your Medicare and kid's future. Smart!

He got OBL. He pushed through healthcare. He just ended Iraq. He had a hand in putting away Qaddafi. And you guys aren't voting for him because he barred photographers from a fundraiser and he didn't keep every one of his election slogans?

Republicans looooove Dems like you all.

.

Carlos Miller - Photography is Not a Crime
Pixiq Expert

You think all those Occupy movements springing up around the country are about photography rights?

He's just another corporate sellout. At least the republicans admit they are selling out to the corporations when running.

If I had to vote today, I would vote for Gary Johnson, who is a republican, on the sole basis that he wants to legalize marijuana (and I never vote for republicans).

Plus the fact that I am familiar with him from my time living in New Mexico and I've always liked him.

I figure if they are all going to sell out to the corporations, including probably Johnson, we should at least have some common sense regarding drug laws in this country.

This is not just because I want to get high legally. It's
because there are way too many people incarcerated over a plant.

But I do support Obama's healthcare plan and wish it would be even more extensive, but we live in a country of greed where people don't mind paying for wars to kill innocent civilians but throw a fit if they have to contribute to somebody else's healthcare.

So just because I wrote this piece today doesn't mean I won't vote for him in 2012, but he better get the message that people are not just going to give him a free ride just because he knows how to give good speeches.

The American people are sick and tired of having to settle for less while the corporations run the government.

If Obama doesn't get the hint from now until the election, then he deserves to lose.

Carlos Miller - Photography is Not a Crime
Pixiq Expert

Why would he ban photographers from the fundraiser unless he don't want us to know who is bribing him?

That's the issue affecting this country now. It's both the dems and the republicans.

I'm surprised by the comments on this thread by PINAC folks.You guys are still fooled by the false left vs right,democrat vs republican paradigm.If you don't know how the Counsel On Foreign Relations,the Trilateral Commission,and the Bilderberg Group control and own both parties in Washington then you will be fooled into supporting the establishment at every election.Obama is Bush, is Clinton,is Bush,is Reagan,is Carter etc.They are all tools of the New World Order establishment.Every administration since the establishment of the CFR has been dominated by CFR agents.The stated goal of the CFR is the destruction of Constitution,the destruction of American sovereignty,and the merging of the nations into a one world government. Every one of the Republican candidates with the exception of Ron Paul is a CFR member,a Trilateral Commission member,or a Bilderberg attendee.Obama is no exception his administration has more CFR agents than any administration in history.

This is actually true. It even found its way into a movie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPMS6tGOACo

Luc

HonorYourOath is correct. Watch "The Obama Deception" or as I like to call it "The Left Right Deception". For a brief overview of everything HonorYourOath has mentioned and more watch it.

The Obama Deception HQ Full length version: 1:53:40 HQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw

Watch it with a pad and pen, write down all that you don't believe and Google it later. The video will give you a clear understanding of how the world really works and who is controlling what.

Follow the history of Banking, Money and Globalist.

The choice is simple, do you want Liberty or Control?
If you want Liberty vote for Ron Paul, if you want control pick any candidate that the Mainstream Media Liars say is the front runner, including Obama.

Don't let the Media Blackout of Ron Paul deceive you, Ron Paul can win.

Register Republican so you can vote for Ron Paul in the Primaries. It's time to take back our Republic.

HONORYOUROATH wrote: "If you don't know how the Counsel On Foreign Relations,the Trilateral Commission,and the Bilderberg Group control and own both parties in Washington then you will be fooled into supporting the establishment at every election."

HO-CHEE-MAMA!! Shades of Joe McCarthy!!

None Dare Call It a Conspiracy.
http://www.whale.to/b/allen_b1.html

Actually Ron Paul is the one to vote for, since he actually has principals and makes sense.

But it doesn't matter who is in the White House, Social Security, Medicare, and the kids future are screwed regardless because nobody besides Paul has the right idea how to fix it (because keep doing what we are doing doesn't work).

The military got OBL, not Obama. The healthcare package isn't going to help regular people, it will only benefit big pharma and big insurance (since they helped write it). He also didn't want to end Iraq- he wanted to stay but the Iraqis refused. He had nothing to do with Gaddaffi.

People aren't going to vote for him just because of the photographers, they aren't because he hasn't kept any of his slogans- the reason he was elected in the first place.

"But it doesn't matter who is in the White House, Social Security, Medicare, and the kids future are screwed regardless"

False. Social Security is fully funded as it is for the next 37 years. After 37 years, if we haven't tweaked the rules of the program, then the program has to go down to 80% of benefits instead of 100%.

YOU ARE BEING LIED TO BY CONSERVATIVE MEDIA. Turn off the talk radio. Do your own research. You have the Internet at your fingertips, for God's sake! USE GOOGLE!

A benefits reduction three decades hence is not a crisis. It's sure not a crisis today. Any talk of Social Security "privatization" or "personalization" or Medicare "reform" is nothing more than an excuse to steal it. Truer words were never spoken by a man than this: http://bit.ly/5zkGV

"Actually Ron Paul is the one to vote for, since he actually has principals and makes sense."

I'm sure you would vote for Paul if given the opportunity, but you won't. You;ll end up with an opportunity to vote for either Mitt Romney or Obama. Why don't you write in Ron Paul in the general election? That way, you can still feel principled but won't be voting against your own economic best interests.

"The military got OBL, not Obama."

Are you so small that you can't give credit to the man who led the military when the military executed his orders? Are you that small? Do you hate him that much?

"The healthcare package isn't going to help regular people, it will only benefit big pharma and big insurance (since they helped write it)."

It's *already* helping regular people! 18 to 26 year olds can go on their parents insurance. TODAY. That's helpful TODAY. http://1.usa.gov/aG4FR5 You cannot be denied insurance because of a preexisting condition TODAY. That's helpful TODAY. And the biggest, best parts of ACA haven't even kicked in yet! Go read: http://1.usa.gov/o9cLTP (And I found that in less than ten seconds of googling!)

You know, under YOUR guy, we passed a deal, "Medicare Part D" which made it ILLEGAL for the government to negotiate the price of pharmaceuticals for medicare patients for which the government is providing service. Now *THAT* was a blatant gift to the Big Pharma that added 780 Billion to the deficit!

READ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

You have no facts. You have no clue. You don't have any data to back you up. You are full of anger that's misdirected at the wrong people. You should not be looking down, at poor people, brown people, or liberals. You need to be looking up, at the richest 1%, for the cause of nearly all of our social ills. Those with money and power are the source of all of our societal problems. But as a conservative (or "independent" as you conservatives call yourselves since being embarrassed off the label by Bush), you'll probably be satisfied with the crumbs that fall off the plates of the rich, worship the rich as "The (job) Creators", and cross your fingers that maybe you'll somehow, someday, end up as one of them. But you won't. You never will. Never. Ever.

"He had nothing to do with Gaddaffi."

Yeah, um, actually, we did. We spent a billion and a half dollars on military missions: on intelligence gathering and bombing runs destroying Gaddaffi's strongholds in Libya, weakening his forces, and directing the forces of other countries in their activities. The Libyans were the force on the ground. We had our part to play, as did everyone else. A part is not nothing. "one" does not equal "zero".

"He also didn't want to end Iraq- he wanted to stay but the Iraqis refused.

Yeah, that's the talking points coming out of right wing talk radio this week. No surprise you agree with it.

It's probably a waste of time to argue with someone like you who believes any swill coming out of talk radio and cannot do his own research. I feel sorry for you. You will vote against your own best interests like a trained monkey. Your life will suffer, you'll enrage at "liberals" and you'll never understand why the world around you sucks so bad.

Look in the mirror, voter.

LJM

Yeah, that's the talking points coming out of right wing talk radio this week. No surprise you agree with it.

That's not a talking point, it's a fact. And it comes from liberal sources as well.

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/21/about_that_iraq_withdrawal/singleton

I'm a liberal who believes in universal healthcare and a social safety net. To suggest that Obama cares about liberal causes, or even is a liberal, is as based in fact as the story of Noah's ark.

The fact that Obama has prosecuted whistle-blowers at an unprecedented rate, after promising to protect them, while protecting the previous administration from any investigation into their crimes; the fact that he has killed and is killing hundreds of innocent men, women, and children overseas; that he's overseen the construction of secret prisons where he holds people indefinitely and without trials; the fact that he's working hard to prevent sick and dying (and, yes, bored) people from getting medicinal marijuana; his record on secrecy being worse than Bush's; that he's assassinated U.S. citizens without a trial and waged illegal wars; all these facts paint a clear picture of an authoritarian who is, at his heart, a conservative.

And voting for a conservative for a second term is, itself, a conservative act. If you're a liberal. Be a liberal. Don't vote for Obama.

I never said Obama is a liberal. Sheesh. I wish he were. Idiots refer to him as a "liberal extremist". If they had any idea how stupid they sound to us *actual* liberals who believe in liberal principles, maybe they wouldn't repeat it so often.

As for not voting for Obama, we went down that third party road with Nader in 2000. We got W for our efforts. Not again. No thanks.

In a communist country, you get one choice when you vote. In a democracy, you get two. You can throw your vote away by voting for the Peace & Freedom or Green Party candidate if you want. It's your vote. Do what makes you happy. I'm a pragmatist, so I'll vote for Obama. Since I don't live in a swing state, it doesn't matter anyways.

LJM

In a democracy, you get two.

Really? I've never heard of that rule. We should hurry and tell most of the other democracies in the world, because I think they have more than two choices.

It's rather silly to blame a third party for W, since it's rather well documented that every bad thing W did, he did with the approval and/or support of most Democrats.

And I don't see how voting for a dishonest authoritarian who has destroyed the lives of innocent people all over the world is a "pragmatic" decision. It certainly isn't a liberal one.

It's rather silly to blame a third party for W, since it's rather well documented that every bad thing W did, he did with the approval and/or support of most Democrats.

It appears you're ignorant of how Nader split the liberal vote in 2000.

It also appears you lack basic reading comprehension.

Regardless, feel free to throw your vote away on the green party or Peace and Freedom party candidate for president if it makes you feel better.

LJM

It appears you didn't address the fact that Democrats enabled W to do most everything he did.

It also appears that, since no thinking person would refer to Nader winning about 3 million votes to Gore's 51 million as, "splitting the liberal vote," you should think twice before calling people ignorant.

Obama has turned out to be a total fake. What happened to the promise to post all legislation online for the people to read before it passed?

What happened to closing Gitmo? Staying out of future military conflict? Raising taxes on the rich?

What happened to no lobbyists in his White House?

Enemy of Wall St? Sure, he took 3 x what all the others did.

"I'll cut the deficit in half in my first term!" - Really? You increased it eight fold in 2.5 years!

He's the worst president in my lifetime (41 years) and will likely go down as the worst ever.

As for McCain, he could only have done better. Anyone could have. I wish Hillary became president over Obama.

He's dishonest, he's unethical, he hides his relationships and donor info, he's weak on foreign policy, weak on economic policy, weak on unemployment. When Bush left office, unemployment was at 5.5%. It's at 9.1% currently, a 70% increase! Oh, and you're not considered unemployed once you haven't found a job in 199 days or more. The real rate is above 20%.

Billions wasted and nothing to show. Nothing but three terrorists killed. As if McCain or Bush would not have said "Yes, general get those terrorists!).

The claim is: "We saved 2 million jobs". Sure. Prove it.

Time for him to be voted out. The country can't take another four years.

Notliberal

""I'll cut the deficit in half in my first term!" - Really? You increased it eight fold in 2.5 years!"

You are sadly misinformed. Turn off the talk radio and do a little research of your own. Start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

or here:

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11766

"he's weak on foreign policy,"

Killed OBL, which Bush couldn't do in 8 years.
Ousted Gaddafi, who Bush befriended.
Getting us out of Iraq by Christmas, cleaning up the W's mistake...
Haven't had a terrorist attack on his watch, unlike the last guy.

Yeah, he sucks on foreign policy.

"When Bush left office, unemployment was at 5.5%. It's at 9.1% "

We lost 8 million jobs under Bush. We've gained 2 million back under Obama. It's slow, it's not enough, but at least it's moving in the right direction.

Dude, turn off the talk radio. It's nothing but lies told to keep you angry at the wrong people and get you to vote against your own economic best interests.

Maybe you should turn off the talk radio.

He didn't want to leave Iraq, he was forced to. W signed an agreement to leave by end of 2011. He wanted to stay, but the Iraqis wouldn't give immunity to soldiers, so he had to remove them.

John McCain, the other choice for president, said in 2008 that we would be in Iraq at least through 2013. Here's the quote:

"By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won….Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension. Violence still occurs, but it is spasmodic and much reduced….The United States maintains a military presence there, but a much smaller one, and it does not play a direct combat role."

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/15/us/politics/15text-mccain.html

So, I don't know about this agreement W signed, but clearly his Republican successor had no intentions of leaving in 2011.

Try again.

LJM

Tim, you're not arguing honestly. The previous poster pointed out the fact that Obama didn't want to leave Iraq and instead of addressing that, you point out what McCain intended to do.

I pointed out that Democrats enabled the Bush adminstration (and continue to protect it from investigation) and you reply by falsely stating that Nader split the liberal vote in 2000.

You should try harder to address the points brought up or have the integrity to examine your own positions.

Luc

Tim in SF, your post are confusing, are you pro or anti Obama? Can you clarify your positions? Too many quotes in your posts to clearly follow your points.

What is unclear?

All quotations are italicized. Normal text is mine.

"We saved 2 million jobs".

And just how many of those "jobs" are titled "Burger Flipper"?

McCain was Bush 2, another neocon foreign adventurist dickhead. I think even republicans had more than enough of Bush, not wanting another 4-8 years of the same many stayed home while Dems happily voted for Obama.
Not much has changed since this OP was written in March, with the exception that it looks like (finally) we may be winding down in Iraq.
http://thefrogmouth.blogspot.com/2011/03/fuck-you.html

Carlos,

I'm with you on the proposed rule change to FOIA. That's loathsome.

However, with the alternative, we never would have gotten any of these: http://planetpov.com/2011/02/13/a-short-list-of-pres-obamas-accomplishme...

To blame Obama for not being able to get anything past an intransigent wall of Republican filibusters shows a lack of understanding how your own government works.

Do you honestly think Mittens or Perry is going to serve the 99% better than Obama?

A vote for Mittens is a vote against your own best interests. It's a vote against the 99%.

I like this blog a whole lot better when it's focusing on photographer's rights.

Tim in SF wrote: "To blame Obama for not being able to get anything past an intransigent wall of Republican filibusters shows a lack of understanding how your own government works"

Uh........Tim. Would you be so kind as to give us a LIST of those filibusters and how long they lasted?

Here you go, Rusty.

http://bit.ly/v07Wne

LJM

Obama has received more money from the Securities and Investment industries than any candidate in the last 20 years.

http://influenceexplorer.com/industry/securities-investment/0af3f418f426...

A vote for Obama is a vote against the 99%.

I agree with you Carlos. There was a lot that he said he was going to do that has not, one being open and honest, second was a lot of "Change." Maybe he meant that he was going to "change" once he was President.

BTW, nice photo of him.

I thought this was a photography site, if I want political comment I would go elsewhere.

First amendment rights are a political issue.

So is abortion, but I don't want to talk about that, either.

Post new comment

Pixiq on Facebook

Join the 10175 Pixiq fans on Facebook

Share

  • Share

Subscribe

Get weekly updates from Pixiq. Short, sweet, and always interesting.