Not at all. Please list some things for which he is actually responsible.

Only when they are deliberately misrepresented in essentially unprecedented circumstances, such as we now have (millions abandoning their search for work, and no longer being counted), and millions more being employed ... but with only 30 hours a week of work, or less, because their employers can't be left holding the bag for the crushing overhead payload that is Obamacare. So even if you want to ignore the millions giving up even trying, the number you think is so good is: NOT.

So the war in Syria that wasn't happening while Bush was in office is NOT new? The conflict in Ukraine is not new? The occupation by the Islamic State of huge swaths of Iraq and Syria actually dates back to Bush's watch? Are you actually paying attention? The point is that people are saying that Obama "ended two wars" ... please describe which wars are now done. I'm interested.

Actually, I was very clear above. He's failed to keep the phony promises he made as a candidate. He's racked up more debt than all of his predecessors combined, expanded practices he said were unacceptable, contradicted himself on countless subjects... which of those things are you considering successes?

It's probably because they watch what he actually does, rather than listen to what he reads from a teleprompter.

Yup. But not because Obama has done anything to enable that expansion. Exactly the opposite. People with private and existing leases are working those resources with new technology. Obama isn't making new leases available, is still enforcing a moratorium on lots of drilling, etc. He's not responsible for the oil/gas glut, it's simply happening while he's in office, even though it would be happening even faster and across a wider part of the economy if he lifted the blocks he's put on much of it.

If he were actually responsible for any of those things, we could talk about it. Actually he can't be responsible for ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, because those are still raging on, and our troops are still there. And he can't be responsible for unemployment below 8% because it's not below 8%. And lower gas prices? Explain what he's done to make that happen. Let me guess - you're going to mention something about more drilling in the US, right? Nope. He's only clamped down on that, in areas where he has any authority. And - killing Bin Laden? Please specifically explain his role, and how the intelligence and special forces people who actually did the work were stuck, and too dumb to finish the job until he provided his expertise in ... what was that now? Please refresh.

Well, let's see. He's got one "signature" piece of legislation rammed through. He promised all sorts of things about it that turned out to be at the very least simply miserably wrong, and in many cases were deliberate lies. The result? Higher (not lower) health insurance costs and deductibles for millions of people (and we haven't even see the result of the employer mandate kicking in - just wait!), tens of millions still uninsured despite the giant rate hikes applied to others to buy them insurance, higher taxes on those that actually pay taxes, and more debt accumulated on his watch than every other president before him combined.

Or we could look at his promise to run the "most transparent administration in history" ... how's that working out for you? Controlling press conferences, harassing reporters, wiretapping newspapers, and stonewalling continually on all manner of inquiries from both the press and the legislative branch. If you'd like, we can explore his unconstitutional (and unsigned!) executive "actions" that attempt to alleviate his frustration that he can't talk another branch of government into doing his bidding.

What? Saddam wasn't, after all, shooting at the planes enforcing the no fly zone? He wasn't violating the UN's oil-for-food agreement? He wasn't continuing to import and build long range weapons? He never did have that stockpile of VX that the UN inspectors documented, and could no longer account for? Saddam actually honored all of the conditions of the cease fire that accompanied his being beaten back from invading Kuwait? Oh, right - he violated essentially every one of them, continued to slaughter people by the thousands using WMDs, and did everything possible to obstruct UN inspections - and never stopped targeting allied aircraft keeping him from slaughtering even more people in the north and south of the country. And of course, your preferred governing party (as previously manifested by the Clintons) not only supported removing him from power, they - and their Democrat counterparts in congress - voted specifically to authorize the use of force about which you're complaining. And they reviewed (and cited) exactly the same intelligence that the administration saw - you know, the same intelligence separately arrived at by several other countries' own agencies and sources. None of which painted a nice rosy picture of they guy you're feeling sorry for.

And the recession? You mean the one that was already beginning to take shape before Clinton left office? The one that's almost entirely due to incredibly foolish home loan policies about which the Bush administration warned the Democrat-controlled congress, but which that congress not only turned a deaf ear, but insisted that the underwriting bodies and banks did more of. That recession?

Nice red herring on the infant mortality rates.

Cuba doesn't count the deaths of infants that die within three days of being born. Those are considered miscarriages, and don't contribute to the numbers. In the US, any birth that still has a heartbeat outside of the mother is considered a live baby. If it dies moments later, that's "infant mortality." Many (very sensible) countries around the world don't do the math that way, resulting in complete apples/oranges when you compare the stats.

Regardless, you're trusting ANY numbers out of Cuba, where the government jails and sometimes kills people who say even very non-specific things that run counter to the totalitarian propaganda?

Gas is that low despite him, not because of him. Get your basic facts straight.

Which two was that? There's more war in Iraq than there was when he took command, and the war in Afghanistan that he said was the important one is still going on. There's also some new NEW war going on in Syria, where he's now got our forces involved, and we have some lead being slung around in places like Ukraine. "End" two wars? Which ones?

You mean, be in office when the people who were already working on the task before he took office finally got things lined up and got it done? His main contribution: watching from the situation room. And the intel/SF people who made it happen aren't very happy with him leaving the Pakistani doctor who helped make it possible to twist in the wind after the deed. Classy.

That fake number only works if you pretend that huge numbers haven't simply given up looking for work. The real number is much higher than that. Which you know. Which everyone knows. Please, show a little integrity.

Well, he is. So there's something to be said for being honest about it.

Therefore the cities are completely independent and self-suficient and rely on neither the crops themselves nor the resources obtained in trade for the crops.

I would even be willing to put up with all of those things, sometimes, if they would only serve the ads from the same servers as the website. It's the mid-tens. Navigating the web shouldn't be slower and more frustrating than it was in mid-nineties.

Wrong premise. Click-throughs were always dubious, and a silly way to measure the impact of an ad. When was the last time you bought something through a movie poster or billboard?

How do you know? Maybe they're talking about a separate room filled with CAD workstations.

Sure.. That agricultural usage is completely unrelated to the cities.

Let me try cleaning up your post for you, Senior Fussypants:

Dear original poster,

"STEM" is a very broad category of studies. Most of us who have jobs that could be called "STEM" jobs find that we're highly interested in some topics in this category (for example, software development), but not others (e.g., microbiology). Many of us are sufficiency interested in a broad cross-section of "STEM" topics to read about them on Wikipedia / Science Daily / EETimes / etc. But one thing is true of most of us: we're so interested in our particular corner of "STEM" topics that we've invested lots an and lots of time studying it and/or doing it as a hobby.

So when we hear you asking about "STEM" work in general, rather than something specific such as organic chemistry, that raises a few alarm bells in our minds.

First, if you're still thinking in such broad categorical terms as "STEM", it makes us think you're not particularly fascinated with any one particular subject area, such as organic chem or computer science. We fear for you: there's a long, hard path to proficiency in any of these areas, and we're concerned you lack the level of innate interest needed for you to succeed and to be happy.

The second alarm bell is that "STEM" is a buzzword du jour of politicians and educators who think of it as pixie dust. "STEM helps our economy!" "STEM workers make more money!" "Everyone can (and should) code, because STEM is great!" Those persons strike us as outside interlopers who are likely to damage our community and our productivity, because they have political power but not understanding. And so, when you use similar language, we're concerned that either (a) you've fallen for their foolish thinking, or (b) are a snowflake in the avalanche we fear is coming from their foolishness.

Please don't misunderstand us: if you're interested in putting in the time to learn the ropes, and you also have the right kind of mind, perhaps a number of different "STEM" jobs would suit you well. But you should expect to put in a lot of hours learning, and you should do a gut-check about whether or not you're really interested in spending 40 hours/week on it, year after year.

You might ask why your American governments don't afford you the same freedoms.

So it's okay for me to go live in Switzerland without any documentation? Sweet!

Because it's impossible to secure 3,000 miles of border, and he would just sneak back in if that's all we did.

Not if they're dead.

Seriously - why do we allow this? If illegal immigrants consider the penalties to be acceptable, the problem is the penalties aren't strong enough to persuade them.

It's not like the penalties are an entrance fee, where once you pay it, we're all good.

Your right! the GP's idea is dangerous and cannot be tolerated!

Except he was elected in part by presenting the case that his predecessor (and by association, a candidate from the same party) wasn't open and clear or honest with the country. He said that his administration would be the most transparent in history. And of course he hadn't been in office for week before he proved to be MORE opaque, more controlling of the media, and more comfortable simply lying his ass off than any president in recent memory. Bill Clinton's compulsive lying seems like little league by comparison.

It's Obama's own finger-wagging lecturing prior to holding office to which it makes sense to hold up his own behavior. That wasn't him being surprised by the realities of office (though, clearly, he had no idea what he was getting himself into, having never run anything in his life, before hand), this was him simply realizing that there was no need to keep up the facade once in office.