Not really. Ask any of the dead people in Chicago, where despite very (and even unconstitutionally) severe restrictions, the local thuggery manages to shoot itself up quite regularly. On the other hand, you've got places where guns are readily available (legally) and routinely carried in cars and on person, and which have very low violent crime rates. It's not about guns, and it's never been about guns. It's about culture and law enforcement. Chicago has a violent subculture and no interest in dealing with it. The results are self-evident.

While it's tempting to assume you have a reading comprehension problem, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume instead you're confused about who said what. A previous poster asserts that Obama (the man, the one person) is responsible for the good things listed. Never mind that those things didn't actually happen (the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, have NOT ended, etc), the point is that he/she is saying that they did and that Obama did it. You should be making your Superhero Worship complaint to people who make claims like that, not picking on me for pointing out exactly the opposite. You're very confused, here. Not that that stops you from making a lazy "you Americans" jab. I suppose I should say "you Europeans/Asians/Whatever are so stunningly unable to follow a conversation" ... ? No, because that would be silly, ad hominem attack without any useful context? Yeah.

What are you talking about? I said that Bin Laden was killed by a large team of people working years to make it happen. That was in response to the idiot who said that "Obama" got him. Nice straw man attack, though. Well, not really. Pretty lame, actually.

And would you point out, like I just did, that the Republican president was preventing oil companies from using their gulf wells? Or from being allowed to use new leases on fields? If a Republican president actually DID those things, you'd be able to. Is that what you're saying, that a Republican would be - as it relates to energy policy - exactly like Obama, and that his party would be giving him full credit for that? What ARE you saying?

Yeah, I know, it's frustrating, isn't it? Do a little homework yourself. You'll see that definitions for stillbirth, miscarriage, and neonatal death vary tremendously by country, and are famously all of the map in poorer countries.

The US counts every birth that shows any sign of life - regardless of size or weight - as a live birth. Most European countries, though, don't consider any birth before 26 weeks to be "live births." A fetus needs to be at least 30cm in Switzerland before it's considered a live birth. Has to be at least a pound in Canada, Germany, and Austria. Those don't survive, and aren't considered live births. But in the US, they are (and then are promptly considered cases of infant mortality). About half of infant deaths in the US occur within moments and well within 24 hours of birth, but countries like Japan (with their excellent stats!) don't count them as deaths unless they occur AFTER 24 hours of birth. See how this works? By contrast, in much of Europe, babies born before 26 weeks’ gestation are not considered “live births.” Switzerland only counts babies who are at least 30 centimeters long (11.8 inches) as being born alive. In Canada, Austria and Germany, only babies weighing at least a pound are considered live births. Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2009/09/111...

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.

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.

And to make your point, you cite a highly partisan organization known for its well funded hatchet jobs?

The question isn't whether the White House told the truth about whether or not they could done something in the moment, militarily, to change matters on the ground during the attack. No, they couldn't have. Because their earlier policy decisions left that option off the table. They left that compound and our ambassador woefully under-protected on the key anniversary of a favorite Islamist attack date. Pure incompetence, of course, but nothing they could do about it once the attack started.

That's what the Democrat-led reports are concluding. It's all about trying for maximum cover for Hillary, period.

And none of that has anything whatsoever to do with the sustained, demonstrated days of lying the White House did after the event, in a transparently lame, embarrassing attempt to prevent their narrative (in the days before an election) about Islamist terrorists being "on the run" from being seen as pure BS. Instead, they tried to explain away the death of a left-for-dead ambassador as the result of a cheesy video posted on YouTube. That is the Big Lie. Of course it all fell apart when it became evident that not even an hour had passed after the attacks before senior intelligence people were in the White House telling Obama exactly what happened (heavily armed, organized terrorists conducting a well planned attack). But know, he and his media emissaries marched out for interview after interview, for days and even weeks, and just lied their asses off - all with the election in mind, period. That's the behavior you're supporting.

Of course they have a say! But what they're trying to say is it's not cool (it's "playing for the other team") to shop around for the best tool for the job because it might be bad for their future marketing efforts and PR.

... he probably also hopes that other countries around the world will consider buying and using products and services that originate in the EU. Just so long as people in the EU can't shop around. Like he hopes others will do, and wind up spending money in France. I'm trying to think of a better word than "hypocrisy." How do you say "Greenpeace" in French?

We need a PETA vs Greenpeace death-by-irony cage fight.

"It appears my hypocrisy knows no bounds." -Doc Holliday