What do you mean "Why not?" I more or less think they were. Clinton less, Bushes more.

Perhaps that is where we differ. You are comparing Obama to others, comparing relative evil. I am looking at the absolute value of the evil present. Something I have mentioned before that you probably do not fully appreciate, is that I spend 6 years bashing Bush as the most contemptible piece of human waste that could have possibly been chosen to sit the Oval Office. ( I am exaggerating slightly, I think Nixon was probably worse all things considered)

"The other guy is evil too" means jack and shit to me. How is evil diminished by the presence of more evil?

I was also surprised that Obama turned out to be even worse than Bush. I expected him to be a bit of a leftist, but I was completely flabbergasted that he turned into a Bush++ neocon replete with all the same corruption. His total 180 turn between rhetoric and action does in fact make me wonder who really holds the power in Washington sometimes.

You call it an "under performance of promises"... however while technically true in a literal sense, I find it an extremely poor description. More precisely, its a reversal of principles - which is something I consider completely different.

Saying you are going to "fix the economy" then failing to due so, due to lack of ability, lack of luck, lack of whatever is one thing. Typical promise underperformed on... and certainly not an indicator of mal-intent. I certainly think it possible to act on your stated *principles and yet underperform in many areas, especially the economy, and especially if you are a leftist.

Saying you are going to protect civil liberties, protect wwhistleblowers and run the most open administration in history... and the proceeding to eradicate civil liberties, prosecute whistleblowers, and run an operation even more secretive than Bush is not "underperformance". It is a very deliberate choice to operate on a completely different set of *principles than what had been stated.

To me, this is a very very different thing - and whenceforth my perception of evil arises.

One thing you might not have noted in my previous list, is unlike so many on the blowhard right-wing media that I think it likely you reflexively associated my view with, is that none of my reasons given have anything to do directly with the *existence of* Obamacare, Bailouts, or wanting to tax the rich, etc. Perhaps there are some particular things that happened in the course of those events that I find particularly shady (like hosing the Delphi ppl during auto bailout)- but I am not basing my view off his economics or leftist stance, no matter how idiotic I believe it to be. Because incompetence and evil are certainly different, and incompetence should be ruled out before assigning ill-intent.


I do not see how someone could take those factors and , accepting that they were true, not come to the same conclusion I have. Also, there is a lot more where that came from. A *lot* more. I also believe that the buck stops with him. If he did not approve of actions taken by underlings, and they are not representative of the ethics he holds, they should have been/be fired and in some cases investigated. If they arent, then I hold him responsible for them. Just like I did and do with Bush. I dont think Bush actually had a plan to destroy the fabric of this country. I think he sat on the sidelines drooling while his appointees did it for him willy-nilly. Doesnt matter, he took an oath of office that in my view he failed to live up to, including defense of the Constitution. Also by failing to enforce ethics on his inner circle when in a position of power I also attribute to him the actions of his underlings.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)