Obama's whole life was dominated by people who believed in Marxism. From his mother and biological father, his maternal grandparents, his early mentor Frank Marshall Davis, his later influence Derrick Bell, and his domestic terrorist friends Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. His voting record during his brief term as senator showed he had the most liberal voting record in Congress. All together, Obama is the most far left-wing president we've had. David Axelrod managed to put out this public image of a more moderate, mild-mannered, well-spoken politician who was "above" race. A lot of people believed the hype.

Like I was saying...


Obama concealed support for gay marriage in 2008, former senior adviser claims in new book
http://news.yahoo.com/axelrod-obama-misled-gay-marriage-2008-135612155.html

I haven't seen one post that puts some of the blame on congress, surely when you have a congress that sells themselves like whores on the street, they deserve to be called what they are.

they could have voted against the war in Iraq, they could have denied obamacare, they could have stopped the wall street bailouts, they could quit sending jobs overseas, as far as im concerned they are truly worthless.

so is Obama so was bush, we have to understand who really runs this country. the fourth branch of government, LOBBYISTS. if we could get rid of them, we might have a chance to create a great nation like we were after ww2. if they keep dictating policy we will only get worse.

Binnie, I can agree with you they all sale themselves. I'm too lazy and swamped at work to wiki anything but wasn't the house and senate both majority democrat when Osama took office? If so, the GOP had no chance of denying Osamacare or shutting it down. (Not arguing or picking a fight, I like you buddy)

Well America wanted change and free Ihpones and we got it. Here we are in shyte creek, anyone got a paddle? Nope, it gone.

Lobbying is in the Constitution. It's the right to petition the government. Lobbyists can influence politicians but they can't make them do anything.

Both parties voted for the war in Iraq, the Democrats push through Obamacare without a single Republican vote, the bailouts were primarily done with the approval of both parties (but not the more conservative and libertarian Republicans, such as Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Richard Shelby), and outsourcing is often due to American overregulation and high taxation that would prevent the companies from profiting at all, etc.

The AIG bailout, which was prompted by the Secretary of the Treasury and George Bush, was necessary because it was the largest single holder of mortgage securities worth trillions of dollars. If it went under the entire world economy would have collapsed. The good news is that AIG repaid the bailout with the U.S. getting $22.7 billion in profit.

I can't refute that Faithful. Like I tell everyone:

"Didn't matter if it was Bush or Gore in office. What were we supposed to do after 9/11? Vote to not go to war after 3,000 Americans died in an unprovoked attack?"

If we do that we lose credibility as a superpower, if we go to war we spend billions of dollars. Bin Laden put us in a lose-lose and he knew it from when he fought the Soviets.

LALOU, you're a great dude too, at least we can agree that congress is all corrupt no matter what party. it could be nice to vote against all incumbents maybe that would help.

Obama has had to deal with an obstreperous Congress. So did Clinton and Reagan, both of whom were in office when the opposition party controlled Congress. But they were able to work effectively with Congress because they liked people, they liked politics, they knew how to compromise and were focused on getting legislation through Congress--and they liked being president.

None of that applies to Obama. He probably can't wait for his term to be over. Neither can I.

Perhaps it was just never what he thought it might/should be and theres maybe 2 ways of looking at that, either the political machine is broken and way beyond his repair or the machine is working "too good" (for some depts) and he simply isn't being allowed to fix it. Im not convinced the president is always the one calling the shots, if ever.

Obama always strikes me as a driven guy who had a fairly rigid plan about what he wanted to achieve, but I suppose that sometimes comes with an inability for compromise...a basic skill in politics....although I completely disagree with it...compromise means deals, which generally means actions the public either don't hear about or get a watered down version of...neither of which they deserve from the people they have put in power

An inability to compromise can also be considered a sign of extremism. If the majority of voters didn't want compromise they wouldn't have voted for a divided government. Obama's party lost the senate as a referendum against his policies. Instead of realizing this Obama has doubled-down. That's not only extremism, but extreme stubbornness.

As for the president calling the shots, that's generally what he does. The U.S. president is also the commander-in-chief of the military and fills cabinet positions. A popular president or at least an articulate one can use his podium to manipulate public opinion. That's very easy to do in the USA where the media is generally pro-Democrat.

No, you cant say the president calls the shots, really? We all know they dont...you honestly think Bush did? You think his cabinet let him? Would you have let him call the shots in your kitchen? They listen to 'advice' and repeat, as Bush no doubt did more of than Obama, but they don't, cant, aren't permitted behind the scenes to call the shots, unless its about unimportant shite like gay marriage etc. to make them feel like they are achieving something. "Commander in Chief" is just a silly title which just oozes of fake bravado. Scotland's version would be "Jimmy Big Balls", just to make him feel good.

Never forget, the US press always manipulate public opinion, not the president, like every free country

Yes, Bush called the shots. His cabinet advised him but he made the final decisions. That's the president's job. Cabinet members don't have power over the president. He's their boss, not the other way around. That's how it's set up in our constitution. Maybe things are different in Scotland, but that's how it is in the USA.

You are correct that the US press manipulates public opinion, but you're mistaken if you don't think that a president can't do it too. That's why the president is said to have a bully pulpit.