People world-over are tired of his nonsense. Whatever happened to "smartest president EVAH!"? I suppose that if in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king, then among the dullards, Obama appears to be bright.

http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/interna...ks/1391635

World opinion of the U.S. is the lowest in my lifetime. I'm 52.

Thanks, Barry.

(11-21-2014 08:31 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  World opinion of the U.S. is the lowest in my lifetime. I'm 52.

Thanks, Barry.

Agree and I'm 62

(11-21-2014 10:04 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(11-21-2014 08:31 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  World opinion of the U.S. is the lowest in my lifetime. I'm 52.

Thanks, Barry.

Agree and I'm 62

Well yall are still young. I'm almost 36. And I agree with you both.

LOL. Compare Obama's approval ratings to Bush's and you'll see that pretty much disproven. Certainly the Russians dislike Obama more than Bush. That and right wing crazies in Israel are about the only two groups that dislike Obama more than Bush.

The Europeans are rushing towards Obama. There's little whining about snooping from them now. At first, the Europeans did what they always do - demand the US do everything (and pay for it) for them. Obama has refused to play their game. The Obama doctrine is to say "sure - we will help, but you have to pull your own weight. So the US made the Poles and the Balts pressure the other Europeans to start acting in the lead in Ukraine. Under Bush, they'd just con Bush into doing all their work for them and then complain and undercut him at every turn. It has created a stronger NATO, where European nations are building bigger budgets. Sweden and Finland are seriously considering joining NATO. Obama has also enforced accountability with the Europeans, by not carrying their water in Libya (we provided some air cover and made the French and the Italians do more of the heavy lifting). It has created a Europe that is accountable for its own security and that now is standing up to Russia. I shudder to think of how Bush would have f'ed that situation up. Now Europe is actually helping. And Obama is reinvigorating NATO as an alliance.

With regards to ISIS, its the same theory. Syria and Iraq aren't strategic US concerns. We don't need their oil. Europe does. Obama doctrine in action - don't expect the US to spend our money and our soldiers lives to protect your concerns when you have the capacity and the economic might to do it yourselves but simply don't want to get your hands dirty. ISIS is largely Europe's problem. The solution should largely come from them. If they refuse to act, the US will only get involved in an emergency (as Obama did) and only when there is no other viable option.

With regards to the Asia/Pacific region - the same principle applies. We aren't there to carry Japan and South Korea's water. Or Australia's for that matter. We will help but you will contribute and you will support us.

So some right wing and unpopular Aussie FM is upset with Obama. Well perhaps that's because Obama isn't as pliable as the last occupant.

Jimmy Carter got what he wanted. He is no longer the worst.

(11-21-2014 11:39 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Jimmy Carter got what he wanted. He is no longer the worst.

(11-21-2014 11:12 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  LOL. Compare Obama's approval ratings to Bush's and you'll see that pretty much disproven. Certainly the Russians dislike Obama more than Bush. That and right wing crazies in Israel are about the only two groups that dislike Obama more than Bush.

The Europeans are rushing towards Obama. There's little whining about snooping from them now. At first, the Europeans did what they always do - demand the US do everything (and pay for it) for them. Obama has refused to play their game. The Obama doctrine is to say "sure - we will help, but you have to pull your own weight. So the US made the Poles and the Balts pressure the other Europeans to start acting in the lead in Ukraine. Under Bush, they'd just con Bush into doing all their work for them and then complain and undercut him at every turn. It has created a stronger NATO, where European nations are building bigger budgets. Sweden and Finland are seriously considering joining NATO. Obama has also enforced accountability with the Europeans, by not carrying their water in Libya (we provided some air cover and made the French and the Italians do more of the heavy lifting). It has created a Europe that is accountable for its own security and that now is standing up to Russia. I shudder to think of how Bush would have f'ed that situation up. Now Europe is actually helping. And Obama is reinvigorating NATO as an alliance.

With regards to ISIS, its the same theory. Syria and Iraq aren't strategic US concerns. We don't need their oil. Europe does. Obama doctrine in action - don't expect the US to spend our money and our soldiers lives to protect your concerns when you have the capacity and the economic might to do it yourselves but simply don't want to get your hands dirty. ISIS is largely Europe's problem. The solution should largely come from them. If they refuse to act, the US will only get involved in an emergency (as Obama did) and only when there is no other viable option.

With regards to the Asia/Pacific region - the same principle applies. We aren't there to carry Japan and South Korea's water. Or Australia's for that matter. We will help but you will contribute and you will support us.

So some right wing and unpopular Aussie FM is upset with Obama. Well perhaps that's because Obama isn't as pliable as the last occupant.

You left out the part where the Prince kissed Sleeping Beauty and they lived happily ever after.

(11-21-2014 11:50 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(11-21-2014 11:12 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  LOL. Compare Obama's approval ratings to Bush's and you'll see that pretty much disproven. Certainly the Russians dislike Obama more than Bush. That and right wing crazies in Israel are about the only two groups that dislike Obama more than Bush.

The Europeans are rushing towards Obama. There's little whining about snooping from them now. At first, the Europeans did what they always do - demand the US do everything (and pay for it) for them. Obama has refused to play their game. The Obama doctrine is to say "sure - we will help, but you have to pull your own weight. So the US made the Poles and the Balts pressure the other Europeans to start acting in the lead in Ukraine. Under Bush, they'd just con Bush into doing all their work for them and then complain and undercut him at every turn. It has created a stronger NATO, where European nations are building bigger budgets. Sweden and Finland are seriously considering joining NATO. Obama has also enforced accountability with the Europeans, by not carrying their water in Libya (we provided some air cover and made the French and the Italians do more of the heavy lifting). It has created a Europe that is accountable for its own security and that now is standing up to Russia. I shudder to think of how Bush would have f'ed that situation up. Now Europe is actually helping. And Obama is reinvigorating NATO as an alliance.

With regards to ISIS, its the same theory. Syria and Iraq aren't strategic US concerns. We don't need their oil. Europe does. Obama doctrine in action - don't expect the US to spend our money and our soldiers lives to protect your concerns when you have the capacity and the economic might to do it yourselves but simply don't want to get your hands dirty. ISIS is largely Europe's problem. The solution should largely come from them. If they refuse to act, the US will only get involved in an emergency (as Obama did) and only when there is no other viable option.

With regards to the Asia/Pacific region - the same principle applies. We aren't there to carry Japan and South Korea's water. Or Australia's for that matter. We will help but you will contribute and you will support us.

So some right wing and unpopular Aussie FM is upset with Obama. Well perhaps that's because Obama isn't as pliable as the last occupant.

You left out the part where the Prince kissed Sleeping Beauty and they lived happily ever after.

What? Not calling me a liar today?

(11-21-2014 12:56 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-21-2014 11:50 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(11-21-2014 11:12 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  LOL. Compare Obama's approval ratings to Bush's and you'll see that pretty much disproven. Certainly the Russians dislike Obama more than Bush. That and right wing crazies in Israel are about the only two groups that dislike Obama more than Bush.

The Europeans are rushing towards Obama. There's little whining about snooping from them now. At first, the Europeans did what they always do - demand the US do everything (and pay for it) for them. Obama has refused to play their game. The Obama doctrine is to say "sure - we will help, but you have to pull your own weight. So the US made the Poles and the Balts pressure the other Europeans to start acting in the lead in Ukraine. Under Bush, they'd just con Bush into doing all their work for them and then complain and undercut him at every turn. It has created a stronger NATO, where European nations are building bigger budgets. Sweden and Finland are seriously considering joining NATO. Obama has also enforced accountability with the Europeans, by not carrying their water in Libya (we provided some air cover and made the French and the Italians do more of the heavy lifting). It has created a Europe that is accountable for its own security and that now is standing up to Russia. I shudder to think of how Bush would have f'ed that situation up. Now Europe is actually helping. And Obama is reinvigorating NATO as an alliance.

With regards to ISIS, its the same theory. Syria and Iraq aren't strategic US concerns. We don't need their oil. Europe does. Obama doctrine in action - don't expect the US to spend our money and our soldiers lives to protect your concerns when you have the capacity and the economic might to do it yourselves but simply don't want to get your hands dirty. ISIS is largely Europe's problem. The solution should largely come from them. If they refuse to act, the US will only get involved in an emergency (as Obama did) and only when there is no other viable option.

With regards to the Asia/Pacific region - the same principle applies. We aren't there to carry Japan and South Korea's water. Or Australia's for that matter. We will help but you will contribute and you will support us.

So some right wing and unpopular Aussie FM is upset with Obama. Well perhaps that's because Obama isn't as pliable as the last occupant.

You left out the part where the Prince kissed Sleeping Beauty and they lived happily ever after.

What? Not calling me a liar today?

I never do. I demonstrate you're a liar.

Telling...

Obama ignored embassy’s warnings on climate change speech | The Australian

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business...66bbeb71bf Wrote:Historians of the US-Australia relationship are unable to nominate a case of a visiting president making such a hostile speech for the host government.

(11-21-2014 12:59 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(11-21-2014 12:56 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-21-2014 11:50 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(11-21-2014 11:12 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  LOL. Compare Obama's approval ratings to Bush's and you'll see that pretty much disproven. Certainly the Russians dislike Obama more than Bush. That and right wing crazies in Israel are about the only two groups that dislike Obama more than Bush.

The Europeans are rushing towards Obama. There's little whining about snooping from them now. At first, the Europeans did what they always do - demand the US do everything (and pay for it) for them. Obama has refused to play their game. The Obama doctrine is to say "sure - we will help, but you have to pull your own weight. So the US made the Poles and the Balts pressure the other Europeans to start acting in the lead in Ukraine. Under Bush, they'd just con Bush into doing all their work for them and then complain and undercut him at every turn. It has created a stronger NATO, where European nations are building bigger budgets. Sweden and Finland are seriously considering joining NATO. Obama has also enforced accountability with the Europeans, by not carrying their water in Libya (we provided some air cover and made the French and the Italians do more of the heavy lifting). It has created a Europe that is accountable for its own security and that now is standing up to Russia. I shudder to think of how Bush would have f'ed that situation up. Now Europe is actually helping. And Obama is reinvigorating NATO as an alliance.

With regards to ISIS, its the same theory. Syria and Iraq aren't strategic US concerns. We don't need their oil. Europe does. Obama doctrine in action - don't expect the US to spend our money and our soldiers lives to protect your concerns when you have the capacity and the economic might to do it yourselves but simply don't want to get your hands dirty. ISIS is largely Europe's problem. The solution should largely come from them. If they refuse to act, the US will only get involved in an emergency (as Obama did) and only when there is no other viable option.

With regards to the Asia/Pacific region - the same principle applies. We aren't there to carry Japan and South Korea's water. Or Australia's for that matter. We will help but you will contribute and you will support us.

So some right wing and unpopular Aussie FM is upset with Obama. Well perhaps that's because Obama isn't as pliable as the last occupant.

You left out the part where the Prince kissed Sleeping Beauty and they lived happily ever after.

What? Not calling me a liar today?

I never do. I demonstrate you're a liar.

Bush's approval ratings versus Obamas?

Please. The only people who preferred Bush were those that sought to subrogate US interest to their own foreign interests (e.g., the settler's movement in Israel), treat the US as their lackeys to do their bidding, or anti-Americans.

Obama ain't falling into Bush's trap. From ISIS to Libya to Ukraine to the Spratly Islands....its a new game....

We will help our friends. But there needs to be some concrete US interest involved and we expect true partners.

(11-21-2014 02:28 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Bush's approval ratings versus Obamas?
Please. The only people who preferred Bush were those that sought to subrogate US interest to their own foreign interests (e.g., the settler's movement in Israel), treat the US as their lackeys to do their bidding, or anti-Americans.
Obama ain't falling into Bush's trap. From ISIS to Libya to Ukraine to the Spratly Islands....its a new game....
We will help our friends. But there needs to be some concrete US interest involved and we expect true partners.

Treat your friends better than you treat your enemies.

Obama treats our enemies better than GWB treated our friends. Both are wrong.

Actually, "both are wrong" probably fits at least 95% of what GWB did and what Obama has done IMO. And I'm thinking that number is low.

Obama is only worried about increasing the size of government to have more dependence on government. He is the welfare and food stamp president. He is a pansy in the eyes of foreign nations.

(11-21-2014 02:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-21-2014 02:28 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Bush's approval ratings versus Obamas?
Please. The only people who preferred Bush were those that sought to subrogate US interest to their own foreign interests (e.g., the settler's movement in Israel), treat the US as their lackeys to do their bidding, or anti-Americans.
Obama ain't falling into Bush's trap. From ISIS to Libya to Ukraine to the Spratly Islands....its a new game....
We will help our friends. But there needs to be some concrete US interest involved and we expect true partners.

Treat your friends better than you treat your enemies.

Obama treats our enemies better than GWB treated our friends. Both are wrong.

Actually, "both are wrong" probably fits at least 95% of what GWB did and what Obama has done IMO. And I'm thinking that number is low.

I don't think Obama is treating our enemies better than our friends. He rightfully told (via Biden) Erdogan to go pound sand over ISIS (Erdogan isn't a friend of he US). The Russians think Obama is behind every bad thing that has happened to their economy (overblown, but Obama is the biggest hawk outside of Ukraine vis a vis Russia). He's not giving Netanyahu (who is NOT operating in US interests) a blank check to complicate peace negotiations with new settlements or invading Iran simply because Isreal wants us to. He's not getting involved in a costly proxy battle between Iran/Russia and Turkey/UAE over ISIS vs Assad vs the Kurds. He implemented the toughest sanctions on Iran (much tougher and much more effective than anything Bush tried). Maduro isn't being helped by Obama (who is, rightfully IMHO, just sitting it out and awaiting the inevitable collapse).

As with any President, mistakes were made. But Obama's mistakes are nowhere near as costly or as damaging as those made by Bush. Under Obama, NATO is reborn as a real partnership, most of China's neighbors are moving towards the US, and our adversaries are under more pressure than they were under Bush. There are always outliers, such as India (where a person rightfully on the US do not enter list for ethnic strife support was elected PM), ISIS in Syria (but then again, Obama asked the Congress for authorization to move in - and the GOP voted overwhelmingly to deny him that authority), Ukraine (which will end up being a net positive for the US as it shut up the America haters in Germany and Western Europe), and Libya (but Obama gets props for not getting us tied down in yet another Middle Eastern morass where we have little to no strategic interest)

BTW, China and Russia want us to get tied down in the Middle East so we won't be defending US interests elsewhere like Europe and Asia.

Obama will talk to Iran. But the only reason why Iran is even talking is because of the sanctions escalated by Obama. And he certainly hasn't been shipping them arms for hostages like Reagan.

What enemy of America has Obama helped? Do you think Obama shaking Chavez's hand really counts?

(11-21-2014 02:39 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  Obama is only worried about increasing the size of government to have more dependence on government. He is the welfare and food stamp president. He is a pansy in the eyes of foreign nations.

Go read the Russian media - They blame Obama for everything
Go read the Venezuelan media - They blame Obama for everything
Go read the right wing media - They blame Obama for everything

You might want to ask the Pakistanis if they think Obama is a pansy. Or the Russians.

(11-21-2014 04:45 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-21-2014 02:39 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  Obama is only worried about increasing the size of government to have more dependence on government. He is the welfare and food stamp president. He is a pansy in the eyes of foreign nations.

Go read the Russian media - They blame Obama for everything
Go read the Venezuelan media - They blame Obama for everything
Go read the right wing media - They blame Obama for everything
You might want to ask the Pakistanis if they think Obama is a pansy. Or the Russians.

Go read the left wing media - They're still blaming Bush for everything.