Here's what we now about the things that hampered Obama's progress:
I'm guessing that was supposed to be "know" and not "now" and as such I would assume...since it's things we "know" not things we "believe" or "think"...that facts will be coming after not opinion. Lets see
There was this horrific financial crash that effected most of the world; maybe you've heard about it, and the Republicans have done nothing but obstruct his abilities from the day of his ignaguration: "we're going to make Obama a one term president" . . . That's what Mitch Mcconnell was saying right?
So lets see....a Fact (financial crisis), an opinion (republicans doing nothing but obstructing), and a factual quote given implied meaning through opinion.
I'm really beginning to think "know" was the wrong word here...
Now as to Obama's successes: he got Osama Ben Laden, not GW Bush (mr. "bring it on");
Umm...very questionable here. First, Obama didn't "get" Bin Laden. You would be accurate if you said that Bin Laden was killed while Obama was President or that he gave the Command. However, giving credit to Obama for "getting" him is, again, opinion based not a fact that we "know". Many of the reasonings one can use to justify, rightly so in my opinion, giving Obama SOME of the credit for the death of Osama Bin Laden can also be used to justify giving SOME of it to GW Bush as well. Ultimately though the ones that "got" Bin Laden was Seal Team Six.
don't forget, Ben Laden was an enemy of this country, it was Bush's job to hunt that SOB down.
Again, questionable here since you present this as some kind of singular job duty. None of Bush's...or Obama's for that matter....duties as part of the job was specifically to "hunt down" Bin Laden. His "job" is to protect, preserve, and defend the constitution and the Constitutoin says nothing specifically about Osama Bin Laden. It is the President's job to protect the country from its enemies by acting as Commander-in-Chief. However, Osama Bin Laden was hardly the singular threat...even within his own organization...against this country.
He didn't so it. So, saying that "it was going to hapoen eventually" is just a cop out.
This one isn't just not a fact, it's actually factually incorrect. Bush was hunting Bin Laden down, as evidenced by the fact that the intelligence string that landed Osama eventually began in 2004 (note who was President then) and had continued through the time of GWB's Presidency. While it's factual to say he didn't succeed at finding Bin Laden before leaving office, he did absolutely proceed in "hunting that SOB down".
The big three auto companies are lucky they're still in business.
More opinoin
There has been plenty written about their arrogance and refusal to follow market trends that drove those comapnies into the toilet: you must remember the scandal about those people arriving in jets and limos to ask the government for money.
Again, opinoin with a smattering of fact added in at the end.
The health care debacle opened the door to further improvements: the genie's out of the bottle and that hasn't happened since Harry Truman introduced the idea.
Opinion. Considering Health Care was being discussed as a campaign issues prior to Obama actually taking over, and some changes to the Health Care in this country happened under Bush (Medicare Part D) there's no factual certainty that had Obama not passed his health care reform that there would not be further discussion and legislative attempts at changing/improving the health care system in this country
As for the supreme court, we'll have to wait and see:
Hey some fact of what we "know".
Again; the debt has everything to do with the crash.
Again, opinoin...not really fact. It's completely up in the air whether or not, given a different economic situation, if Obama's spending would've been siginificantly different than it was. At this point it's guess work. It's not necessarily bad opinion, but it's not a "fact" that it'd be significantly different in terms of the debt.
FDR did the same thing when he took office. The idea is generate economic activity: when poeple get into trouble they leverage their homes and do all kinds of things to stay afloat, so I'm not buying all the nonsense about deficit spending when it ignores so mush that is so obvious. You must remember that it was Republican leadership that put us into this hole in the first place, so trying to blame president Obama for its effects really just defys all reason.
Fact in terms of what the "idea" was. Opinion in terms of stating what "people do" since such broad statements are rather questionable to make. The "Republican leadership" statement is questionable as well. How is that defined...is the "leadership" determined by singularly whose in control of the White House? Does the congress matter at all, specifically the house where the usage of monies originate? Are you suggesting that, since you state "republican leadership" put us in this hole, that the entirety of our debt issues rests on Republican shoulders rather than anything on Democratic shoulders or simple happenstance?
As for scandals; yeah, I forgot that every single president prior to Obama had perfect adminstrations . . . What scandals? Are you forgetting that we live in a society that wtches Jerry Springer and Snooky?
So one fact here...that other administrations have had scandals...as a means of pushing an OPINION that scandals don't matter for Obama. Followed by a seeming denial of any scandals with the notion of "What Scandals" followed again by an opinion that seemingly any scandals under hte Obama administration don't matter because people watch Jerry Springer (They still do?) and the Jersey Shore.
Sorry, but I just can't see how your argument overrides the facts of Obama's current adminstration.
You didn't provide much facts at all. For stating you wanted to talk about what we "know" your post was nothing but a littering of opinions, implicatoins, and assumptions based entirely on a left leaning view of what is good and bad...which isn't something inherently bad to do, it just isn't exactly jiving with the notion of you stating you were going to talk about what we "know" when you started your post.
