Egypt (and everyone else) laughing at obama

It's not just the war. Has Obama authorized torture? Is Obama a war criminal?

The biggest issue as I see it as that rather than directing your anger at what deserves it (THE SYSTEM), you focus it all on one person. The people's outrage is diluted - some hate Dubya, some hate Obama, some hate Democrats, some hate Republicans, and the polarizing way through which the Government maintains its stranglehold over the citizen's lives and freedom works its magic. You need to stop looking at things through tinted glasses.

Hate the player if you must, but above all, hate the game, because that is where the problems come from. Despite what they say, Republicans and Democrats are the same party. The same puppeteers pull the strings of both.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
As far as I'm aware, Obama is seen as alright here in Aus. Not amazing, but certainly better than several of his predecessors (notably Dubya and Reagan, though I also personally dislike Clinton.)

Here's what the "JOKE" is: Your entire political system. Ours as well, sadly. Most are. But here's a list of some of the bigger names in US politics that I'm aware of.


H. Clinton - Utter shill. Liar. Really wants to be president, and will do practically anything for that goal.
Trump - Troll, Grandstander, Bigot, etc.
Carson - Nuts.
Obama - Ineffectual.
Dubya Boosh - My GOD, what a failure. And a war criminal, that's sort of important, eh?
Bill Clinton - Signed NAFTA, which is why most of the US's industries have been exported to China.
Reagan - Created Reaganomics, also known as Supply Side economics and "Doesn't Work" economics.

Yes, Obama is far from a savior, but he's a hell of a lot better than you could have had, and a hell of a lot better than what you did. Stop circle jerking over the hatred of a single man and realise the truth: The entire system has been #$!*ED since JFK died.

obama has fooled a lot of people. Democrats in general rely on that. The typical democrat policy is "if you keep giving them free stuff they will keep voting for you." The problem is, there are more and more people with their hands out and the tax payer base that must fund these giveaways is shrinking. That can not be sustained, but democrats only know one song so they just keep going. They push debt limits back, knowing full well sooner or later it will collapse, instead of creating a balanced budget plan. Notice that democrats respond to that by saying "The budget wasnt balanced under republicans either." They intentionally ignore the point. It is one of the primary duties of the president of the US to provide a balanced budget plan to congress. Whether congress approves it, or whether it works is another story.

Keeping business strong is necessary for a solid economy. Letting business get away with murder is not. The two party system is a dinosaur. It lumbers along barely able to generate enough energy to feed itself. If the food were a foot farther away it would probably just roll over and die. It is destined to fail. The rivalry between the two parties has reached a fail point. In order to "win" the battle of rhetoric the system must fail. It is the only way either side can win. They are so blinded by the fear of the legacy of being the ones who lost the battle they would rather die fighting than live to fight another day. This is obama's strength. He excels at presenting the martyr image, without actually having to suffer. He has a stack of victim cards he can play at any time. Take away the victim cards and what you have left is a lot of deception, outright lies, and failed policies, both foreign and domestic.

Now here is where you que the liberals to start shouting about Bush. You see, they cant address the issues of what democrats did or didnt do. They know that is a losing battle. The only thing they can do is make sure you know that somewhere sometime a conservative was guilty of the same thing. As if saying that makes whatever the democrats do is ok. That is why nothing ever changes. Instead of addressing issues we have to make sure we dont lose the rhetoric battle. The issues fall to the wayside and the problems are never resolved.

When the world looks at king obama they see some very sad examples of how a world leader should not behave. Closed door last hour meetings to pass legislation no one is allowed to read...after getting elected by promising the most transparent administration ever. A commander in chief who cant be bothered to salute a soldier standing at the foot of marine one, a soldier there to sacrifice his life to save the president if need be...and obama cant even offer a proper salute as he walks by. A president who bows to saudi kings...something no other president has ever done. He projects and air of weakness and uncertainty. His lack of knowledge in world affairs is shameful. The morning of the attacks in Paris obama was on television saying ISIS had been contained. No one believed that, except for liberals who believe everything he says. The world knew better and ISIS proved it just a few hours later. But it was politically convenient for him to say it, so he did.

There are so many examples I cant and wont even try to list them here. I do not believe obama has this nations best interests at heart. I think his policies prove that. I dont think Bush was the greatest president we ever had, but I do not question his love for this country and I never had the impression that he would intentionally do anything to hurt the US.

Yes, okay, Obama is bad, I get that. But remove the blood from your hate-boner from a moment and realise that every president back to JFK has screwed things up in one way or another. Obama is just the latest in line.

Also, stop saying "King Obama", it really doesn't add any sense of legitimacy and just presents you as incredibly biased, which to be fair, you probably are.

No, stop saying "It's the Democrat's fault". It is, partially, but the problem is with both sides not just one.

Bush was an unabated failure regardless of his love for the country (in the same way that Trump loves the country?) and the key point that you have to remember and address rather than conveniently forget and ignore is that he authorized torture. He is a war criminal. Plain. KISS.
But it isn't about Bush. It's about how the whole thing is messed up. Obama is a symptom, not a cause, and you need to address the cause rather than spilling hate-gospel about the symptom.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

TARP. Once again, who signed it, thus sending the debt that you are so worried about skyrocketing again?
And by the way, please stop saying 'king' Obama. It makes you sound demented with hatred. Which you probably are, but you get the point.
Oh and the whole salute thing - a) Obama may be the CinC, but he's not in uniform, which means that he doesn't have to salute, b) saluting the guards on Marine One only been a thing since 1981, as it was brought in by Reagan, and c) when Obama has forgotten to salute back he makes up for it.
Oh and by he way, the spread of ISIS in Syria and Iraq has been stopped and the Kurds are counter-attacking. The fact that Paris happened on that same day doesn't affect matters one jot.
Finally, where do you get your facts from? Faux News? That whole 'liberals-like-giving-people-free-things' remains a consignment of geriatric shoemakers.

originally posted by: Dr UAE
i just wanted to point out that subtitles doesn't have any thing to do with what the guys are saying , so the translation is wrong , all what they are speaking of is the president of Qatar and his mother , they didn't mention Obama at all , i know this because im an Arab.

Thank you - glad I didn't bother to view the video, seeing as there was no information provided in the OP whatsoever, not even a synopsis of what is effectively a fake video. Might as well post a vid of Putin discussing football and claim he declared nuclear war.

Star for you; Would negative flag the OP if i could.

originally posted by: DAVID64
Waiting for The Pack to show up and defend this clown. He talks a big game, but when it comes right down to it, it's nothing but excuses and apologies. He sits on his hands, while the rest of the world laughs and calls us idiots for electing him at all, much less twice.
Truth hurts sometimes, huh?

LOL! Owned by your assumptions and bias! You thought it was real and made yourself look silly! Hahaha!

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
Yes, okay, Obama is bad, I get that. But remove the blood from your hate-boner from a moment and realise that every president back to JFK has screwed things up in one way or another. Obama is just the latest in line.

Also, stop saying "King Obama", it really doesn't add any sense of legitimacy and just presents you as incredibly biased, which to be fair, you probably are.

No, stop saying "It's the Democrat's fault". It is, partially, but the problem is with both sides not just one.

Bush was an unabated failure regardless of his love for the country (in the same way that Trump loves the country?) and the key point that you have to remember and address rather than conveniently forget and ignore is that he authorized torture. He is a war criminal. Plain. KISS.
But it isn't about Bush. It's about how the whole thing is messed up. Obama is a symptom, not a cause, and you need to address the cause rather than spilling hate-gospel about the symptom.

I will stop saying king obama when he stops acting like a king with a magic pen and starts acting like an elected official. He makes no qualms about circumventing congress and using executive privilege whenever it pleases him. The idea behind the structure of our government is so that no single person has too much power. No tyrants.

Again, its not hate - its fact. And people dont think twice about their hate boner when attacking republicans. If you can dish it out, you can take it democrats.

And for those who keep calling Bush a war criminal and such...lets all remember that the democrats had control of congress, at times by super majority, the last two years of the Bush administration. Bush didnt even have veto power. So - whatever you want to blame Bush for you MUST blame the democrats for. Not one single piece of legislation was passed during that time that was not passed by democrats. Republicans didnt have the numbers and Bush had no veto power. It was the democrats. There is not one single piece of legislation that was blocked that was not blocked by democrats. Again, the republicans didnt have the votes. It was democrats.

You can cry all you want about Bush, but the democrats were the ones making the policy and passing the laws. People here are railing against Bush and his economy. Well, it was the democrats who had super majority the last two years of the Bush administration. They had free reign. They could have done whatever they wanted. And the economy still failed. And somehow, even though Bush was powerless and the democrats had the votes to pass any law they wanted with no fear of veto, you STILL manage to blame Bush.

You liberals need to clean your own house before you start telling me what to believe or how to act or what to do. You have a &%$% load of dirty laundry you need to address before you start pointing fingers at anyone else.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: Vroomfondel

TARP. Once again, who signed it, thus sending the debt that you are so worried about skyrocketing again?
And by the way, please stop saying 'king' Obama. It makes you sound demented with hatred. Which you probably are, but you get the point.
Oh and the whole salute thing - a) Obama may be the CinC, but he's not in uniform, which means that he doesn't have to salute, b) saluting the guards on Marine One only been a thing since 1981, as it was brought in by Reagan, and c) when Obama has forgotten to salute back he makes up for it.
Oh and by he way, the spread of ISIS in Syria and Iraq has been stopped and the Kurds are counter-attacking. The fact that Paris happened on that same day doesn't affect matters one jot.
Finally, where do you get your facts from? Faux News? That whole 'liberals-like-giving-people-free-things' remains a consignment of geriatric shoemakers.

And who had super-majority the last two years of the Bush administration? The democrats. They could have passed, revoked, changed, any law they wanted to. Bush didnt even have veto power. Anything you want to blame Bush for you MUST blame the democrats for. They were the ones who either passed or blocked the legislation. The republicans didnt have the votes and Bush didnt have veto power. It was the democrats. Period.

Oh, and the cic not having to salute is bs. He is the cic, a military position. His office does not require him to wear a uniform but he is still bound by military code of conduct. If the lack of a uniform meant anything at all then no military personnel would have to salute him unless he was in uniform. Sorry, but that isnt how it works.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: Vroomfondel

TARP. Once again, who signed it, thus sending the debt that you are so worried about skyrocketing again?
And by the way, please stop saying 'king' Obama. It makes you sound demented with hatred. Which you probably are, but you get the point.
Oh and the whole salute thing - a) Obama may be the CinC, but he's not in uniform, which means that he doesn't have to salute, b) saluting the guards on Marine One only been a thing since 1981, as it was brought in by Reagan, and c) when Obama has forgotten to salute back he makes up for it.
Oh and by he way, the spread of ISIS in Syria and Iraq has been stopped and the Kurds are counter-attacking. The fact that Paris happened on that same day doesn't affect matters one jot.
Finally, where do you get your facts from? Faux News? That whole 'liberals-like-giving-people-free-things' remains a consignment of geriatric shoemakers.

And who had super-majority the last two years of the Bush administration? The democrats. They could have passed, revoked, changed, any law they wanted to. Bush didnt even have veto power. Anything you want to blame Bush for you MUST blame the democrats for. They were the ones who either passed or blocked the legislation. The republicans didnt have the votes and Bush didnt have veto power. It was the democrats. Period.

Oh, and the cic not having to salute is bs. He is the cic, a military position. His office does not require him to wear a uniform but he is still bound by military code of conduct. If the lack of a uniform meant anything at all then no military personnel would have to salute him unless he was in uniform. Sorry, but that isnt how it works.

Sadly for you, your facts are not facts at all. The Democrats did not have a super-majority during the last two years of Bush's presidency. They had a bare majority in the Senate - 51-49 - and that's not a veto-proof majority at all. You need 60+ for that. As for the House that was 233-202. Again, not a super-majority. Period.
Now, let's get back to TARP. That was pushed by Hank Paulson (Dubya's SecTreas) and flogged like mad by Dubya himself. It was that or let the economy collapse. It was necessary, especially after the failure of the first attempt to pass it, which fell foul of Boehner's failure to persuade his people that it was necessary. After the Dow fell like a stone and scared some reality into the GOP it passed the second time.
About the salute - did you even read my link? The saluting started in 1981. By a man who thought that he served in a combat zone during the Second World War.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

I don't think you quite understand where my finger is pointing, neither to the left or the right, it is pointing to the center. All I am asking is that you spread the hate around, rather than focusing on the democrats.

originally posted by: dogstar23

originally posted by: Dr UAE
i just wanted to point out that subtitles doesn't have any thing to do with what the guys are saying , so the translation is wrong , all what they are speaking of is the president of Qatar and his mother , they didn't mention Obama at all , i know this because im an Arab.

Thank you - glad I didn't bother to view the video, seeing as there was no information provided in the OP whatsoever, not even a synopsis of what is effectively a fake video. Might as well post a vid of Putin discussing football and claim he declared nuclear war.

Star for you; Would negative flag the OP if i could.

you're welcome , the thing that bothers me more even though im not American this thread is going on and on and on , even though i pointed out in the first page that this is a made up translation , i mean normally where does this kind of threads go ?

a reply to: Dr UAE

Thank you.

If there is a universal translator for the spoken word, the world would be a nicer place.

originally posted by: Dr UAE

originally posted by: dogstar23

originally posted by: Dr UAE
i just wanted to point out that subtitles doesn't have any thing to do with what the guys are saying , so the translation is wrong , all what they are speaking of is the president of Qatar and his mother , they didn't mention Obama at all , i know this because im an Arab.

Thank you - glad I didn't bother to view the video, seeing as there was no information provided in the OP whatsoever, not even a synopsis of what is effectively a fake video. Might as well post a vid of Putin discussing football and claim he declared nuclear war.

Star for you; Would negative flag the OP if i could.

you're welcome , the thing that bothers me more even though im not American this thread is going on and on and on , even though i pointed out in the first page that this is a made up translation , i mean normally where does this kind of threads go ?

What you pointed out was unnecessary. It was fake. But the message is real. And is shared by a lot of people. To the point that parody films are being made about it. (this is where you read between the lines)

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: Vroomfondel

TARP. Once again, who signed it, thus sending the debt that you are so worried about skyrocketing again?
And by the way, please stop saying 'king' Obama. It makes you sound demented with hatred. Which you probably are, but you get the point.
Oh and the whole salute thing - a) Obama may be the CinC, but he's not in uniform, which means that he doesn't have to salute, b) saluting the guards on Marine One only been a thing since 1981, as it was brought in by Reagan, and c) when Obama has forgotten to salute back he makes up for it.
Oh and by he way, the spread of ISIS in Syria and Iraq has been stopped and the Kurds are counter-attacking. The fact that Paris happened on that same day doesn't affect matters one jot.
Finally, where do you get your facts from? Faux News? That whole 'liberals-like-giving-people-free-things' remains a consignment of geriatric shoemakers.

And who had super-majority the last two years of the Bush administration? The democrats. They could have passed, revoked, changed, any law they wanted to. Bush didnt even have veto power. Anything you want to blame Bush for you MUST blame the democrats for. They were the ones who either passed or blocked the legislation. The republicans didnt have the votes and Bush didnt have veto power. It was the democrats. Period.

Oh, and the cic not having to salute is bs. He is the cic, a military position. His office does not require him to wear a uniform but he is still bound by military code of conduct. If the lack of a uniform meant anything at all then no military personnel would have to salute him unless he was in uniform. Sorry, but that isnt how it works.

Sadly for you, your facts are not facts at all. The Democrats did not have a super-majority during the last two years of Bush's presidency. They had a bare majority in the Senate - 51-49 - and that's not a veto-proof majority at all. You need 60+ for that. As for the House that was 233-202. Again, not a super-majority. Period.
Now, let's get back to TARP. That was pushed by Hank Paulson (Dubya's SecTreas) and flogged like mad by Dubya himself. It was that or let the economy collapse. It was necessary, especially after the failure of the first attempt to pass it, which fell foul of Boehner's failure to persuade his people that it was necessary. After the Dow fell like a stone and scared some reality into the GOP it passed the second time.
About the salute - did you even read my link? The saluting started in 1981. By a man who thought that he served in a combat zone during the Second World War.

Sadly for you... I could eat a bowl of vegetable soup and crap a better answer than that.

I said the democrats had control of congress, at times by super-majority the last two years of the Bush administration. They did have super-majority, for a full two months during the last two years of the Bush administration. We have seen how fast king obama can sneak legislation through at 11:45pm. To say that two full months wasnt enough time to change anything is an absolute lie. Period. LIe. Period.

When you have complete veto proof control you can do anything and you can do it overnight if you want to. Time to face facts - the democrats are just as guilty as Bush ever was. High ranking democrats called for war in Iraq, including hillary, pelosi, biden, and many more. But somehow it is only Bush who is guilty.

The liberals claim that because the senate adjourned they only actually had 11 working days of super-majority and that was not enough time to accomplish anything. Uh huh. We know they can jam legislation down our throats any time they like but when it comes time to help the nation, and that is what they claim they wanted to do, for some reason they cant get it done. Then they used the senate adjournment as an excuse. They were the ones controlling the senate. And they were the ones who voted to adjourn. Then they used it as their excuse.

Lets see an intelligent argument to those facts. How do you explain the behavior of the democrats? They had super-majority and didnt use it. They adjourned the senate instead of taking advantage of the golden opportunity of veto-proof majority. And then blamed Bush for legislation they initially passed right along with him. And you still think the democrats are the way to go...

Bush's hands were tied. He couldn't do anything. The democrats had the opportunity and the votes, but accomplished NOTHING. I ask you honestly, if you are capable of it, which is worse: not being able to do anything, or being able to do something and choosing to go on vacation instead? If what Bush did was really that bad that people are still raging against him all these years later, how can you possibly have any less rage at the people who actually did have the power to make the changes but CHOSE NOT TO?

originally posted by: Logman
Right wing hate of Obama is so thick you can actually taste it.

Clearly the OP just got taken for a ride and was duped by sarcasm yet still thinks this video is a proper reflection of the world's opinion of Obama. I'm not going to argue that the whole world loves Obama, but I'm not going to try to post sarcasm, get called out on it, then double down on the same rhetoric despite the fact it was sarcasm.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Logman
Right wing hate of Obama is so thick you can actually taste it.

Clearly the OP just got taken for a ride and was duped by sarcasm yet still thinks this video is a proper reflection of the world's opinion of Obama. I'm not going to argue that the whole world loves Obama, but I'm not going to try to post sarcasm, get called out on it, then double down on the same rhetoric despite the fact it was sarcasm.

Yeah, clearly... in liberal goggles perhaps...

Did you ever see a tina fey parody of sarah palin? Do you think the parody is just a fake video with no factual merit at all? Be honest now. You took it as a real reflection of your perception of palin. And so did alot of other people. So get off your liberal hobby horse and get a grip on reality. Its a fake video that demonstrates a real perception of the fact that we have a clown community organizer for a president. Sorry if you can only find the humor in the ones aimed at conservatives, but after all, that kind of blinded tunnel vision is what liberals are famous for...

The issue with Bush isn't as simple as "The Iraq War", it's part of it - and if any other politicians are complicit I think they should be hated just as much.)
Bush authorized torture, that is a war crime, and illegal. I'd like for him (and everyone else involved) prosecuted, but I doubt that's going to happen.

Look, sorry OP, but you are clearly one hell of a biased person. Ranting and raving about "liberals" and "king Obama" doesn't give the impression of someone who's doing anything but writing a smear piece or screaming into the void. All I see is someone defending Dubya and blaming it on the people they don't like.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
The issue with Bush isn't as simple as "The Iraq War", it's part of it - and if any other politicians are complicit I think they should be hated just as much.)
Bush authorized torture, that is a war crime, and illegal. I'd like for him (and everyone else involved) prosecuted, but I doubt that's going to happen.

Look, sorry OP, but you are clearly one hell of a biased person. Ranting and raving about "liberals" and "king Obama" doesn't give the impression of someone who's doing anything but writing a smear piece or screaming into the void. All I see is someone defending Dubya and blaming it on the people they don't like.

Well, that was some honesty. I appreciate that.

Bush wont be tried for war crimes regarding water-boarding. Much the same way clinton dodged accusations with word play like, "What do I mean when I say What?" If there is any inquiry at all it will come down to what constitutes torture and what was known at the time. Did Bush say, "Water-board them and torture them?" Or did he say, "Get the information." And find out later than his instructions were taken to an extreme he might not have condoned? Or perhaps he know of the water-boarding but it was described to him as a very persuasive questioning technique. There are a lot of unknowns here. Without the word for word dialogue, there are a lot of possibilities.

I dont like democrats. That is plain to see. And I dont like republicans. But of the two, I would much rather a republican government than a democrat. There are many many reasons for my preference. Far more than I could list here.

When I go on a rant about democrats, it is in response to rants against Bush. Its been seven years now. Its time to stop blaming him. king obama cant play both sides of the coin. You pick one and stick with it. If you can blame the condition of your administration on Bush seven years ago then Bush can blame his administration on Clinton. It works both ways.

In the two party system, both parties are corrupt, owned by corporations, and are worthless. None of them have the best interests of the people at heart. But I started a thread about a film mocking obama and it turns into an attack Bush thread. I stated early on that this thread is about the video and the world laughing at obama, and us by extension through him. You talk about me being clearly biased. And that doesnt apply to the people who cant limit their conversation to the video and the subject of obama being a joke on the world stage but rather have to drag Bush into it? Come on now. You were so close...

I am less biased than most liberals here. At least I can see the truth. The liberals are so blinded they cant even imagine a world where a democrat did something wrong. I dont condone torture but Bush and his actions were not part of this thread. They arent now and they never were. If you want to accuse someone of being biased, why not accuse the liberals who cant stay on topic for fear of missing a chance to bash Bush?

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
The issue with Bush isn't as simple as "The Iraq War", it's part of it - and if any other politicians are complicit I think they should be hated just as much.)
Bush authorized torture, that is a war crime, and illegal. I'd like for him (and everyone else involved) prosecuted, but I doubt that's going to happen.

Look, sorry OP, but you are clearly one hell of a biased person. Ranting and raving about "liberals" and "king Obama" doesn't give the impression of someone who's doing anything but writing a smear piece or screaming into the void. All I see is someone defending Dubya and blaming it on the people they don't like.

If you look a little closer you will see that I am actually blaming Bush and the democrats who voted along with him, supported him in going to war, and above all, the democrats who had control of congress, for two months by super majority, and completely totally failed to take advantage of it and went on vacation instead of using that golden opportunity to solve this nations problems. Bush's hands were tied but the democrats weren't. They had the ability to pass whatever legislation they wanted. And they did nothing to save the economy or end the war. Nothing. I blame the people who had the ability and the opportunity to do something and didn't more than I blame the people who wanted to do something but couldn't. Only partisan politics can change that perspective. And that doesn't help anything for either side.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

You continue to rant and rave about the evils of the Democrats and their veto-proof majority, but sadly for you (again) the facts you are using are all wrong. I can repeat myself if you like, with a yawn. Do you enjoy being wrong by the way? You must do to stick to beating this very dead horse. The Democrats did NOT have a veto-proof majority. You got that? You need a two-thirds majority vote to over-ride a veto. 100 Senators means that 66 Senator = supermajority. Want me to go over those figures more slowly? The Democrats did not achieve that in 2008. The closest they got to it was 60 Senators in April 2009, when Arlen Specter decided that he was tired of being in the party of lunacy and jumped ship.
Let's get back to more facts and to TARP, which I note that you refuse to mention. Which is a shame because I will continue to ram it down your throat. TARP was brought in by the US Treasury Secretary in the Bush's administration, Hank Paulson. He had to bring it in to deal with the horrendous tidal wave of toxic assets that Wall Street had created under the fond delusion that everything would be just fine 100% of the time and that there as no way that the things could ever turn bad. Guess what, they were 100% wrong.
Frankly it was TARP or bust. And I mean bust - Ben Bernanke said that without a solution there would be a second, and far worse, Great Depression. Paulson came up with the plan and took it Congress. The Democrats were appalled by it, as were the Republicans. Paulson explained why he needed it. People went white with fear and reluctantly agreed to it. The Democrats voted for it. Sadly the insanity that now infects Congressional Republicans then kicked in and not enough of Boehner's people voted for it and it failed.
The next day the Dow fell 777 points in reaction.
The day after that, having changed their underwear, the Republicans voted for a new version of the bill.
So there you are. TARP is the reason behind the massive increase in the debt (which is diminishing actually, not that you will ever admit to that in your blind hatred of Obama) which happened during the Bush Administration. Is that clear enough or should I use shorter words?