"Obama Is A Failed President because of his conservative, even reactionary, agenda"

[hashtag4]

"Obama Is A Failed President because of his conservative, even reactionary, agenda"

[Please do not post copyright material without citation, and then limit your excerpts to less than 5 paragraphs, per our forum guidelines.] - Last Warning Already Given

 

[FeeNicks]

Why doesn't this cunt get banned for copyright shit

Like BUSYBODY

WE KNOW WHY

 

[hashtag4]

So I guess that means you didn't like my "Obama failed because he was conservative" article.

 

[FeeNicks]

Yours

 

[hashtag4]

Why doesn't this cunt get banned for copyright shit

Like BUSYBODY

WE KNOW WHY

I guess I'm starting to look like competition with these threads.
Busybody of the anti- globalist conspiracy theories.

 

[Liar]

"by Tyler Durden"

Was that even considered edgy back in -96?

 

[RobDownSouth]

"by Tyler Durden"

Was that even considered edgy back in -96?

Some background on ZeroHedge:

Zero Hedge was established in 2009. According to the Boston Business Journal, the website publishes..a number of writers "who purportedly hail from within the financial industry." Posts on the website are signed "Tyler Durden," a character in the movie Fight Club.

In 2009, shortly after the blog was founded, news reports identified Daniel Ivandjiiski, a Bulgarian-born former hedge-fund analyst who was barred from the industry for insider trading by FINRA in 2008, as the founder of the site, and reported that "Durden" was a pseudonym for Ivandjiiski.

In April 2016, the authors writing as "Durden" on the website were reported by Bloomberg News to be Ivandjiiski, Tim Backshall (a credit derivatives strategist), and Colin Lokey. Lokey, the newest member revealed himself and the other two when he left the site. Ivandjiiski confirmed that the three men "had been the only Tyler Durdens on the payroll" since 2015. Former Zero Hedge writer Colin Lokey said that he was pressured to frame issues in a way he felt was "disingenuous," summarizing its political stances as "Russia=good. Obama=idiot. Bashar al-Assad=benevolent leader. John Kerry=dunce. Vladimir Putin=greatest leader in the history of statecraft."

LINK

Small wonder ZeroHedge has such great appeal to Russia-first propopents such as busybody and AJ.

 

[Queertag45]

Poor wee dishrag, left on the faucet to dry.

 

[Queertag45]

Why doesn't this cunt get banned for copyright shit

Like BUSYBODY

WE KNOW WHY

Why??

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

*chuckle*




Repost the link please.

 

[Adjudicator]

[Please do not post copyright material without citation, and then limit your excerpts to less than 5 paragraphs, per our forum guidelines.] - Last Warning Already Given

Ha! What a loser.

 

[hashtag46]

Why doesn't this cunt get banned for copyright shit

Like BUSYBODY

WE KNOW WHY

I lived to see this: you got me banned BB, lol

 

[FeeNicks]

I lived to see this: you got me banned BB, lol

I gotta say, Piss Rag, your new names are real imaginative, unlike that BUSYBODY guy

 

[hashtag46]

This was the article that was quoted in the OP:

Former Lifelong Democrat Admits "Obama Is A Failed President"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-31/former-lifelong-democrat-admits-obama-failed-president

"Obama is a failure not because he wasn’t sufficiently conservative or ‘Christian' (as Republicans had constantly accused him of having been), but instead because he wasn’t sufficiently progressive (nowhere close to being a progressive) — and, in many ways, he was actually far more conservative than any of his duplicitous campaign-rhetoric had pretended him to be.

Obama’s failure was all his own — it’s not because of the good things that Republicans had blocked him from doing; it is instead because of the horrible things (such as his failed TPP, TTIP and TISA trade-treaties, and his successful 2011 killing of Gaddafi, and 2014 coup in Ukraine) that were central to his actual agenda — a conservative, even reactionary, agenda, which favored the interests of the hundreds of billionaires who control U.S.-based international corporations, above the interests of the 300+ million American people, whom the U.S. President is supposed to be serving."



---------------------------------------


The article then goes on to mention some of the reasons why they consider this to be so (
these are my own bullet points, not quotes):

1.Internal policies
- Having come into power right after the 2008 crash, one would have been expected am increase in financial institutions fraud investigations or prosecutions to increase. Yet they dsoared.
- Despite the economic gains, the level of inequality remained the same instead of de decreasing as one might expect after an economic crash.
- The "alternative work arrangements (as in americans who are involuntary working part-time) account for a large part of his economic growth.
Raise in poverty in house districts
- Doubling of federal debt

2.His failed TPP, TTIP and TISA trade-treaties

3.Foreign politics
- he contributed to the destructions of Lybi. and Syria, leading to an enormous number of civillians who were either killed or became reffugees
- Honduras: he kept in power the junta-regime which caused an increase in murder rate and hundreds of thousands of Hondurans to flee to the States

 

[hashtag46]

I gotta say, Piss Rag, your new names are real imaginative, unlike that BUSYBODY guy

You're the boss!

 

[Sean Renaud]

This was the article that was quoted in the OP:

Former Lifelong Democrat Admits "Obama Is A Failed President"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-31/former-lifelong-democrat-admits-obama-failed-president

"Obama is a failure not because he wasn’t sufficiently conservative or ‘Christian' (as Republicans had constantly accused him of having been), but instead because he wasn’t sufficiently progressive (nowhere close to being a progressive) — and, in many ways, he was actually far more conservative than any of his duplicitous campaign-rhetoric had pretended him to be.

Obama’s failure was all his own — it’s not because of the good things that Republicans had blocked him from doing; it is instead because of the horrible things (such as his failed TPP, TTIP and TISA trade-treaties, and his successful 2011 killing of Gaddafi, and 2014 coup in Ukraine) that were central to his actual agenda — a conservative, even reactionary, agenda, which favored the interests of the hundreds of billionaires who control U.S.-based international corporations, above the interests of the 300+ million American people, whom the U.S. President is supposed to be serving."



---------------------------------------


The article then goes on to mention some of the reasons why they consider this to be so (
these are my own bullet points, not quotes):

1.Internal policies
- Having come into power right after the 2008 crash, one would have been expected am increase in financial institutions fraud investigations or prosecutions to increase. Yet they dsoared.
- Despite the economic gains, the level of inequality remained the same instead of de decreasing as one might expect after an economic crash.
- The "alternative work arrangements (as in americans who are involuntary working part-time) account for a large part of his economic growth.
Raise in poverty in house districts
- Doubling of federal debt

2.His failed TPP, TTIP and TISA trade-treaties

3.Foreign politics
- he contributed to the destructions of Lybi. and Syria, leading to an enormous number of civillians who were either killed or became reffugees
- Honduras: he kept in power the junta-regime which caused an increase in murder rate and hundreds of thousands of Hondurans to flee to the States

While I don't agree with all of these points liberals have been pointing out that he wasn't one of us for years and we wish he was the man he's accused of being.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

When he decided to rule by executive order, bypassing Congress and in effect, legislating without the legislature he was following in the footsteps of his Heroes, Woodrow Wilson, FDR and LBJ. He was a thoroughly a Fabian Socialist as any one of his heroes.

And this is at the root of the current of the current Progressive Democrat consternation at have won another battle against the Constitution, limited government and the ability to control our lives, they were happy and contented at the progress gained, but in true Bastiat myopia, they never once considered that all of this new power and reach for the Executive Branch would ever go over to the other Party...



Four the next four years, they are going to pay a lot of lip service to the overreach of the Executive Branch and the value and beauty of limited government and checks and balances. The only problem there is that the Republicans elected the second coming of Teddy Roosevelt and this guy will be as arrogant as his predecessor.