You should be honored, your about to get a pretty cool nickname. Big Puffery Daddy is pretty sweet IMO.
Obama is responsible for some of it, but the country as a whole, and Bush especially, are just as responsible, if not more so. And don't go off saying that I am blaming Bush and to get over it. The article that this thread is about BLAMES BUSH and the Iraq War for a lot of the problems we are now facing. When you have a 10 year war, the repercussions do not go away in 6 years. We will be feeling the repercussions for decades. That is how bad that invasion decision was.
He is responsible because he is the President of the United States. And as the most visibly recognizable official in the world, for the sake of symbolism, much of the "blame" for the worsening conditions of U.S. Foreign Affairs will be on him for at least the rest of his presidency. And I understand, existentially at least, the supposition that "blame" and "responsibility" are similar sentiments, at least in perception. But to acknowledge a "deteriorating" foreign policy situation without ascribing context to it (meaning, that in spite of what we believe as Americans, much of the rest of the world is wary of our intentions, and may be for the forseeable future, no matter who is President) is the larger problem that we can only address as a nation. We have only just recently committed a date to leaving Afghanistan. We only left Iraq a year or so ago. These conflicts have gone on for more than ten years on their own, with all of the attending nastiness and rancor that the conflicts entail. For me, to try to shed the culpability of the mistake that the Iraq war was (which led to the Afghanistan conflict not reaching a resolution as quickly as it could have, by default) by assigning or re-assigning "blame" is missing the point... ...the point that the world is not the same as it was 50 years ago. Or 30 years ago. Or even 10 years ago. People across the world will know things and glean information about things much more rapidly than in the past because of technology (specifically the internet). American cannot simply tailor a narrative to our liking and for our benefit and present it as infallible and unassailable to the rest or the world anymore, no matter who represents it. The Iraq War has made that definitive. We are, perhaps for the first time since the end of World War II, going to be "vetted" by the world stage for our foreign policy choices. And because our words and actions are not going to be trusted for awhile, (not to mention the very real need to distance ourselves as direct participants―militarily, especially―from foreign events), there will be opportunities for political opponents to score points (like Vladimir Putin), and further tarnish an international reputation that no amount of bluster or cowboying is going to remedy right now. Again, I'm not particularly averse to anyone holding President Obama and his administration responsible for anything. But to do so with a microwave mentality (especially concerning other foreign nations), and without the context of the rest of the world having the right to be distrustful of and pissed off at us, isn't a smart thing to do. The best way to go about repairing that is to monitor things as closely as we can, and when the right opportunity arrives to somehow rehabilitate our image (and if we can build a domestic consensus of how to act―there is a large strain of thought here that says we should stay out of other people's business for awhile), to do so at the world's request, and not at our own direction. We're still sorting through which way to go on a lot of things as a country here. We can't give the rest of the world a map when we aren't sure where we are ourselves. And this is one area where the divisiveness of the national politics hurts us most of all. How can the President, who represents us all abroad, garner confidence and respect with so much obvious and overt discontent here? He has to say things differently, I guess?
Interesting... the "worst foreign policy", the "worst handling of the domestic economy", the worst at "reaching across the aisle", and of course, the worst health care policy. All these "worsts." And despite all these worsts... no alternative ideas. No alternative GOP leaders rising to offer up an alternative idea. Instead... grousing of cartoon characters... the Palins, the Bachmanns, the Cruzes... trying to appeal the most extreme. As a result, eight years more of sane presidency in the form of Hillary Clinton...
This is a problem. It's a problem because our leader isn't leading and hasn't thought through a coherent plan. The rest of your lengthy post was setting up excuses for Obama.
Yes...a leader who has virtually half of the electorate still debating his legitimacy as an American citizen. Whatever his "vision" may or may not be was not going to gain traction without support from the legislative branch...one section of which positioned itself as diametrically opposed to whatever he would propose as a default position in any debate, and subsequently dismissive of him very nearly indiscriminately. I guess maybe he could have said something a different way to get people who think he's the Antichrist or a Kenyan Socialist Usurper. It would befit his image of being Satan incarnate. There's probably been a market for a good cat-herder for more than a few hundred years now. You find one, I'll vote for him.
OK you're not here to discuss things in a serious manner. This is such an exaggeration and you know it. Nothing but excuses from you.
If I made meme's I'd make Puffery, The Puffer Fish and put GOP talking points in it. Puffery says: "This is by far and away the worst administration in the history of the US Presidency"
bigtexxx represents his party fittingly. He spends all his time criticizing Obama on his policies but has never suggested a good idea himself. My only conclusion from this is that bigtexxx has no good ideas. In this world there are people who do (usually high-achievers and successful people), and then there are people who lazily sit in their armchairs and criticize, bigtexxx falls in the latter.
Texxx aren't you the slightest bit embarrassed that so many people see right through you? Even the newbies?
News flash. It is a multi-polar world, bigtexxx and others. No US president will get along with the Brics until we probably exhaust ourselves trying to control and exploit them. Hopefully we come to our senses and decide to do what Britain and France did when they jettisoned their colonies. We should stop trying to police and control the whole world especially countries powerful enough to give us a hard time.
This is exactly what their electorate elected them to do. In case you are unaware, there is a large portion of the US populous that does not believe in Obama in any way. Just like when Bush was president and just like it will be with the next president(though IMO this is the most divided I have ever seen our country). Our system is set up so that it should be very difficult to create new legislation. Kowtowing to the president on whatever pet legislation he thinks the silly little congress should pass is not how our system is designed to work. A leader can get people to work with him. If you are a poor leader you point and whine about why those meanies won't do whatever you want. Obama is not a good leader. Bush was a poor leader as well, but I don't remember him whining so much about the other side.
You're posting quite a bit in this thread - why don't you address the core premise? Let's start simple - where did Obama misstep with respect to US foreign relations with Brazil, and why is it so important to you? I'm sure you have some great answers - I am looking forward to reading them.
Ask yourself why? continued Bush bailout continued Bush Patriot act continues to kill Al Qaeda requires deadbeats to buy insurance instead of overworking pubic ER's promotes livable wage for a majority of workers got chemical weapons out of Syria without firing a shot promotes a multi-solution energy plan managing the westernization of Ukraine managing China expansion in the South China Sea Stock market at all time highs The 1% making more money than ever
I don't care what Obama did, but he is the president and has been for 6 years. I think he can own US foreign relations by now. Naming Obama's foreign policy actions is not my core premise or the original article's. The article's premise is that US foreign relations with the BRICS are bad for a lot of reasons. My premise is that Obama is responsible for foreign relations and has been for 6 years. Obama is responsible for the problems whether he caused them or not and it's his job to fix them. I would love to hear him come out and say so because I believe that is what a good leader would do. I also believe that the "other side" would respect that and might start working with him a little better on a lot of things. Oh, if Obama does come out and say so you'll have to let me know because I no longer listen to anything he says. College football, basketball, NFL etc. off season... I'm bored, I apologize, I'll go back to lurking.
Are you happy with Obama's results -- our relations with Brazil? That is the question. Not trying to play your amateurish legal training exercise. Just look at the results -- they're not good.
