Will Mr. Obama Go Down In History As The Worst

[John81]

Typically, one term presidents are rated as worse than two term presidents even before their actual accomplishments are considered. That in itself will give us at least three modern presidents likely to always be rated lower than Obama; Ford, Carter and Bush I.

 

Meanwhile, as has been pointed out, those who write the history (most often from a bias) will shape the view points of the masses who are generally ignorant about such things. For instance, viewed from the strict, original intent of the Constitution, Lincoln and FDR should be rated as two of the worst presidents, yet both are upheld as great presidents.

 

As Pilgrim pointed out and alluded to, the most important thing is if our names are in the Lambs Book of Life. If Christ returns soon, the current presidents standing will dissolve quickly. If another hundred or more years go on before the return of Christ the likely fall and/or break up of America will greatly impact historical views of the whoever the last several presidents were. By then, it won't matter other than for those interested in writing the history of the fall of America.

[JerryNumbers]

I beg to differ with you guys.  History written in the next few years is not really history.  Real history is to be written hundreds or thousands of years after an event has passed.  Obama will be a short paragraph in a short chapter on the short history of a short lived empire called the United States of America.  Obama and all other would be important persons are only tiny blips in the great scheme of things.  It is you and I the so-called little people that lift these people up to be something they are not, "important".  It's to bad that we get so excited that we we lift them up on pedestals of fame or infamy because they have not really earned it.

 

The really important thing is to be written in The Lambs Book of Life not in a history book which will perish in a great book burning one day.

 

God bless,

Larry

 

Of course, the real importance is the Book of life, but that is not the question under this topic, the question was about worldly history & how Mr. Obama will be viewed.

 

I believe in time to come he will be deemed worst than Mr. Nixon. I believe Obamacare finished him off.

 

And of course with history books you do not have truth, its just the opinion of the man that wrote the book. Plus people that write history are not always trust worthy.

 

And even here in this United States history writers in the north & south disagree s with one another, & democrats & republicans disagree with one another.

[John81]

Many Republicans are openly saying now that Obamacare can't be gotten rid of so they aren't even going to try anymore. Instead, they are seeking ways to improve Obamacare. Once people are used to Obamacare and it's made to run more smoothly it will come to be viewed better, just as did Medicaid and medicare.

 

Also, at this time liberals write more history than do conservatives and the schools, public education through colleges, buy their books from liberal publishers. It will be the liberal version of Obama that's taught most and they will be kind to their first black president.

[JerryNumbers]

I disagree to many people are having to pay a much higher price for their health insurance, such as my brother-in-law, $4,800.00 more dollars per year, & that's affecting both democrats & republicans pocketbooks, & people whether democrat or republican do not forget anyone getting in their pocketbooks.

 

And wait a little bit, it will probably jump even higher.

 

So this will not be forgotten.

 

Even democrats congressmen are worried about their reelection that's coming up.

[John81]

Medicare and other programs started out with bad press, bad rollouts, but now you couldn't get that voted out no matter who you are.

 

Like all other government programs, once it's begun, we are stuck with it.

 

Even before Obamacare was passed, Republicans were stepping all over one another trying to come up with their own version.

 

There are parts not working well and parts people already love, and both the Dems and Repubs will spend the next several years figuring out a way to make it work in a way they prefer.

 

The liberal history writers will help cover Obama and make his presidency appear better than it was. Already much of the blame for the problems with Obamacare are being laid upon Republicans on the House. This is what will end up in history books.

[Miss Daisy]

Remember both Nixon and Clinton were impeached. Only Nixon had enough character to resign. Different times. Crimes were crimes. Jump to Clinton, no character, times now, crimes only covered up and/or denied.

[John81]

It wasn't because of character that Nixon resigned, it was because more than enough Republicans were going to join with the Democrats to kick him out of office.

 

Clinton had the Democrats standing up for him so he knew he could weather the storm.

 

We would probably be very hard pressed to find any president in our lifetimes who did not commit crimes. The government is continually involved in very shady, including criminal, things and presidents know at least some, if not most of it.

[JerryNumbers]

White House Tries to Prevent Judge From Ruling on Surveillance Efforts

 

The president is trying his best to be the dictator.

 

Excuse me, Dictator in Chief.

Edited December 24, 2013 by JerryNumbers

[Arbo]

 

 

The president is trying his best to be the dictator.

 

Seems to have been a theme from the beginning.

[JerryNumbers]

CNN, Gallup: Support for Obamacare Plunges to Record Lows

 

“Democratic senators in red and purple states are going to have a tough time defending their vote for a health-care law that wasn’t ready for prime time,” writes National Review columnist Matt Kibbe, referring to the law’s embarrassing rollout that was plagued with persistent technical and public relations issues. 

 

New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat, is already the target of a biting television spot linking her to the president and hammering her decision to vote for the law. Persistent reports suggest that former Sen. Scott Brown is preparing a challenge based in part over her weakness on Obamacare.

 

Meanwhile, a new CNN/ORC survey finds that support for the healthcare law has plummeted to a record low, with most Americans predicting skyrocketing costs for medical care, and a third don’t believe they will be able to keep their doctor.

 

In that poll, CNN reports, support for the law is down five points in less than a month, to just 35 percent of those questioned. Opposition for Obamacare is up four points from November, to 62 percent, according to CNN.

 

How bad is it? “Even Democrats recognize the negative issues associated with the new healthcare law and its implementation,” Gallup states.

 

Most of the newest opposition comes from women, traditionally a core constituency for the president. Sixty percent of women polled do not like the law. 

 

For Full Story

[Miss Daisy]

John81, I didn't really mean moral character, more like guts. Meaning, he realized that him resigning was the best thing for the country, not to drag it out any longer than it already had been. Unlike Clinton, his allegations, trials, etc. took his focus off the country for a long time, but even after all he put the country through, he was still re-elected. But the average low information voter (as Rush describes them) didn't understand what he had actually done and believed he was in trouble for the actual acts themselves. They don't even realize he was  impeached either because he didn't resign.

Edited December 24, 2013 by lefton

[JerryNumbers]

John81, I didn't really mean moral character, more like guts. Meaning, he realized that him resigning was the best thing for the country, not to drag it out any longer than it already had been. Unlike Clinton, his allegations, trials, etc. took his focus off the country for a long time, but even after all he put the country through, he was still re-elected. But the average low information voter (as Rush describes them) didn't understand what he had actually done and believed he was in trouble for the actual acts themselves. They don't even realize he was  impeached either because he didn't resign.

 

I agree.

 

Something about Mr. Clinton, he can stand & talk to people never saying nothing but the majority of people will fall in love with him. he did it as governor of this state, them did it as president, while bring disgrace on both.

 

I just hope his wife never becomes president.

[John81]

White House Tries to Prevent Judge From Ruling on Surveillance Efforts

 

The president is trying his best to be the dictator.

 

Excuse me, Dictator in Chief.

What president in our lifetimes has not done these things? Every president I can remember tried to manipulate the courts, used the Justice Department to shield the Administration, used claiims of executive privilidege and national security as a block, used executive orders and recess appointments to circuMVent congress.

 

Not to mention, every one of them violated their oath of office with regards to their constitutional duties.

 

This is nothing new, although it seems louder as communication technologies expand. The Right was all wound up over President Clinton, claimed he was the worst president ever, was going to initiate marital law and stay in office and many other things. The Left did the same thing while Bush the Second was in office. Now we see a repeat while Obama is in office.

 

The one thing we have in common is that both Parties make lots of noice as if they are really concerned about these things, but neither does what they actually could to work against it. Instead, both Parties build upon what one another does so they can grab more power with each election cycle. All the while, both Parties are moving America down the same dead end road, just shouting different slogans along the way.

[candlelight]

What president in our lifetimes has not done these things? Every president I can remember tried to manipulate the courts, used the Justice Department to shield the Administration, used claiims of executive privilidege and national security as a block, used executive orders and recess appointments to circuMVent congress.

 

Not to mention, every one of them violated their oath of office with regards to their constitutional duties.

 

This is nothing new, although it seems louder as communication technologies expand. The Right was all wound up over President Clinton, claimed he was the worst president ever, was going to initiate marital law and stay in office and many other things. The Left did the same thing while Bush the Second was in office. Now we see a repeat while Obama is in office.

 

The one thing we have in common is that both Parties make lots of noice as if they are really concerned about these things, but neither does what they actually could to work against it. Instead, both Parties build upon what one another does so they can grab more power with each election cycle. All the while, both Parties are moving America down the same dead end road, just shouting different slogans along the way.

Well said, John.  I remember an OB member saying, awhile back, that the Republicans are the "stupid party" and the Democrats are the "evil party."   

It is sad when the majority of our youth won't vote, today.  My son would have voted for Ron Paul, in the last election, but said, "What's the point?"

[John81]

Well said, John.  I remember an OB member saying, awhile back, that the Republicans are the "stupid party" and the Democrats are the "evil party."   

It is sad when the majority of our youth won't vote, today.  My son would have voted for Ron Paul, in the last election, but said, "What's the point?"

That's pretty accurate. I might only add that the Stupid Party is complicit in the evil.

 

Neither the Dems nor the Repubs want anything other than the way things are going. Neither Party wants, or will tolerate, a leading candidate who won't keep things going as they are.

 

The Dems took out Traficant, the Repubs have taken out Buchanan and Paul. Both Parties would rather lose than see an independent minded candidate of their own Party win.

 

Had Republicans truly been interested in doing what is right, they could have done so during the time President Bush was in the White House and the Republicans controlled congress for 6 of those years. One can't blame "the war on terror" for nothing getting done. Historically presidents have used their wartime popularity and Party control to accomplish what they really want to get done on the domestic front. Republican President Bush and the Republican congress didn't even try.

 

Praise God this is not my home and the Lord's will shall be done!