Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Jedi Knight, Mar 15, 2012.
Is Obama the WORST president? Sorry for the typo...I'm the "worst" typo! What do ya think?
Yes, to date he is the worst. Mitt Romney replacing him would at least be as bad or worse. A liar is a liar, a pro abortionist is a pro abortionist, and a Mormon is not a Christian.
Nope. He might make the worst "this" century, but we still have 88 years to go before we can find out.
One of the worst: Harding who's entire presidency was rocked by one scandal after another. Another: Carter, who had no business being president. (IMO)
Obama is just mediocre. He got handed a sack of problems and has been dragging it along behind him as he meanders through his term making little progress in emptying the sack because he's too concerned with liberal morality questions (gay rights, abortion and health care) to deal with the real problems facing this country: the loss of freedoms under the Patriot Act, the deregulation of business that led to this mess (in particular the loss of caps on interest rates and the ability of banks to play in stocks and bonds which was illegal until the '90s because of the '29 market crash).
Here is a quote "He's been a horrible president. I always said the worst president was Jimmy Carter, guess what? Jimmy Carter goes to second place. Barack Obama has been the worst president ever." Donald Trump told Sean Hannity on FOX News.
Obviously you do not remember Lyndon Baines Johnson. The Republicans after Reagan are only marginally better. A big spender is a big spender regardless of party.
First of all, are you suggesting we delete section 3 of Article VI of the COTUS?
Yes, Romney is Mormon, Newt and Rick are Roman Catholic - and who knows what Ron Paul is - but none have ever testified that they are born again Christians - so obviously none of them would qualify - according to you.
Actually, Obama has claimed to accept Christian principals.
As far as Mitt - it appears that you do not believe that a man can change his opinion. I accept the fact that he does not condone abortion.
Just curious, when is the last time Mitt participated in a pro-abortion activity?
Salty: "Just curious, when is the last time Mitt participated in a pro-abortion activity?"
Per this link and numerous others, Romney refuses to sign the Pro-life/Personhood pledge, he has current ongoing flip-flops on the Personhood Amendment instead of taking a consistent stand for it, and he has refused to attend pro-life events where candidates have been questioned on their positions. What he HASN'T done says it all for me.
I was going to say nice try - but no- the link does not answer my question. I asked when was the last time he participated in a pro-abortion activity. I did NOT ask what he has NOT done for pro-life.
And as far as not signing a pro-whatever pledge, I can understand why some politicians are cautious about pledges they sign.
For example, I say I am 100% pro-life, but some would say I am not because I believe in the Death Penalty.
So, Pam I ask you again - "Just curious, when is the last time Mitt participated in a pro-abortion activity?"
PS, do me a favor and not act like a politician - they usually find a way not to answer the question asked of them.
...he really our POTUS, or a figment of our imaginations? :smilewinkgrin:
Salty, you asked the question that I quoted along with your statement that you accept the fact that Mitt does not condone abortion, and your statement directed to saturneptune that he can not accept that someone can change. I was responding with all this you said in mind, not just your final question. I should have made that clear - I apologize. I believe people can change, but due to this info i have read in several articles, I personally do not see any clear evidence he has changed, and I can not accept the fact that he is no longer pro-abortion.
Now, his statement, referred to in the article, from the Sept. debate that he wouldn't support protecting the unborn under the 14th Amendment I think supports my opinion pretty strongly, and stating it on national television seems to be a clear "promotion" of the pro view, but yes, might not fall strictly under "activity", which is what you asked for. So in any "official" capacity or activity, I suppose it would have been as Governor of Massachusetts. But is he pro-life just because he hasn't actively participated in pro-abortion legislation/governing in a long time? ? Nope, I'm not buying it.
I believe a man can change. I believe anyone can be saved, changed by Jesus Christ and lead a productive life. That does not mean I am going to vote for him for the highest office in the land. That goes for his pro gay rights stance, gun control, and his government run health care stance until he ran for President.
I would say his last date of dabbling in the abortion issue was his last day in office as governor of Massachusetts. Then, voila, I am a conservative, pro life saint. Yes according to me, it is one thing to question whether a person is a Christian or not, it is quite another to know, being a member of the Mormon cult.
Just the makeup of someone we need in the White House.
Nope, I do not want to eliminate that part of the Constitution. He has the right to run. I have the right not to vote for a non Christian, and encourage others to do the same.
She answered your question. In reality he is neither pro life or pro abortion. Around here, that makes him anti pro life. His position is based on the circumstances of the moment. If I want to run for governor of Massachusetts, I am pro abortion. If I want to run for President of the United States, I am pro life. He has no moral bearing on this or any other issue. He is quite willing to pander for votes in exchange for the blood shed on innocent children.
If one is not actively stopping abortion, one is part of the problem, and blood drips off that persons hands like the abortion doctors that his administration while governor of Massachusetts failed to address, or that he signed bills allowing the practice to continue. That goes for the Romney care bill he signed that is a mirror image of Obama care.
The same principle can be applied to his gay rights and gun control stance. It is always some type of I want it both ways stance. On gay rights, it is I am against marriage, but for civil unions and advancement of equality of rights. On gun control, it is I am for small hunting arms, but against the public having certain types of guns.
Maybe that wishy washy baloney passes the test up there, but not here. I will never vote for a liberal Democrat for President, but there is one difference between Democrats and Romney. Democrats are quite up front about their pro abortion, pro gay rights stance, pro gun control stance. They make it clear from day one before an election. Romney is trying to slither into the White House by shifting positions and no moral bearing. He is just as bad if not worse.
PS. Does that answer your question?
This is what I believe too. It's why I keep telling people that a vote for Romney is a vote for Obama. I just can't see much difference in their policies.
You beat me to it. Johnson escalated the Vietnam War and lied about it. He also started (or escalated) the Presidential practice of deploying troops without a declaration of war. He started Medicare/Medicaid, the Welfare Program, the Great Society, food stamp programs, etc. Then after creating this huge mess he decided not to run for President, instead leaving the cleanup job to someone else. We've still not recovered from it.
Driving america to full blown socialism, wants to drive God out of the public square, at least Christian God...
So would say YEP...
Lincoln was the worst president. He started most of the political/legal changes you all complain about. He converted sovereign states into provinces.
Roe vs. Wade can be blamed on Lincoln. Montana legalized medical marijuana, and Obama put the patients using it into federal prisons. That is also Lincoln's fault.
and just why did Lincon declare Martial Law?
What would you think if Obama declared martial law.
Do you know what percentage of the vote Lincoln got in 1864?
scroll down for the answer
only 55% compared to 39% in 1860 - but remember the Southern States (now CSA) did not vote.
If Lincoln was popular, whe would have won with a much larger %
Is Obama the worst?
At least one person thinks so.
We'll have to wait until after his second term to know.