-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Obama’s Leadership
- Thread starter cashmcall
- Start date
Werbung:
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
What if all those years that the dems said there was a mastermind behind Bush was based on their inside knowledge of a system in which they had a mastermind behind their own candidate? What if the crazies are right and all the presidents are really controlled by a secret cabal?
More realistically he is a community organizer who is in over his head and his staff, counselors, party leaders, et al, have merely picked up the slack. Suppose Sarah Palin who was more qualified than Obama would have been in over her head too but after being a Senator for Alaska she gains the experience to run for President and won't be in over her head?
More realistically he is a community organizer who is in over his head and his staff, counselors, party leaders, et al, have merely picked up the slack. Suppose Sarah Palin who was more qualified than Obama would have been in over her head too but after being a Senator for Alaska she gains the experience to run for President and won't be in over her head?
You know Doc, the more I think about it, I don’t know why that’s even a question. Of course he can’t lead. If he could, he would have by now.
Texas_tea
Well-Known Member
Obama is leading ....
It's just not a leadership that rational thinking people see and recognize.
It's just not a leadership that rational thinking people see and recognize.
What leadership ?
Texas_tea
Well-Known Member
Leading in the destruction of America .... the evil, unjust, racist, colonist empire!
OldTrapper
Well-Known Member
So, you are saying that the Republicans are just a bunch of sheep following the shepherd. I would agree.
However, a rational person could argue that the country has been in destruction mode since about a decade after its founding. Or one could argue it began with Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Reagan, Clinton, Bush. One could also argue that the apathy of the people has caused its destruction, or even the solidifying of the two party system.
The most logical argument is that the people have ignored the warnings of the Framers such as Washington arguing against a two party system, Franklin warning about the loss of the Republic form of governance, Jefferson warning about the evils of corporations, and entanglement in foreign matters.
To blame it on one man is the act of the irrational.
Texas_tea
Well-Known Member
Not blaming it on one man .....
Nevertheless ... this "one man" has been more destructive than all the other men combined and with a different agenda than the others!
OldTrapper
Well-Known Member
Problem is he is following the same agenda Bush started. Do some research on it. Or does your partisanship not allow you to do actual research on your own?
You could start here:
http://www.govexec.com/federal-news/2006/02/imperial-presidency-has-long-history/21214/
Sadly, while most of you would claim to be “Tea Party” supporters, and perhaps you are, you will still vote Republican (The Tea Party is simply another name for Republican) which will remain controlled by RINO’s as long as you are alive, and perhaps longer. They are the ones that control the funding for candidates, the legislative agenda, and the list of donors. And under Dick Armey, and Karl Rove, they will still be RINO's. The “Tea Party” is simply an extension of the GOP following most of the same agenda, and giving just enough appearance of being something different.
And, if you had been wise, you would have supported groups like this which actually share many of your beliefs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Party_(United_States)#Fiscal_policy
or even this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Party_(United_States)
Texas_tea
Well-Known Member
Sorry Trap ....
You lost me with the blame Bush card. I am no fan of Bush and even lesser a fan of ignorant political debate. You can continue to quote wikipedia as a legitimate source, you can continue to believe TEA Party members are no different than RINO's or Republicans or what the hell ever ....
I am not interested in your comments at this point!
OldTrapper
Well-Known Member
Naw Texas, I "lost you" by telling the truth, and your lame excuse of me "blaming Bush" is just an old saw from the lame of mind. You might really check out those wiki links. They are to actual political parties that were here long before your Tea Party. It is just that they are not controlled by RINO's like the Tea Party is. Or are you saying that Armey, Rove, etc., are not RINO's?
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
The recent Reason-Rupe poll also finds two groups among those who self-identify as supporters of the Tea Party, with 41 percent leaning-libertarian and 59 percent socially conservative.
Yes Bush was a Rino...BUT he didn't systematically twist and mutilate the language as Obama and all of his underlings do, all the time and on nearly every issue, without some purpose in mind. They downplay the war both to obscure the real enemy and to build up another one. They call significant scandals “phony” to deflect from their responsibility and pin back the ears of the victims, who are this administration’s enemies. The enemy that Obama’s administration consistently targets is people who oppose his political agenda here at home. His IRS singles them out. His EPA punishes whole states. His NLRB tries to force union rules on right-to-work states and non-union enterprises. Obamacare forces the heavy, central planning blue state model on red states whether they want it or not (and they don’t). Increasingly, no one but Obama’s union friends and bloodless bureaucrats want Obamacare, and they only support it as a means of power — they don’t want to live under it themselves. Not to mention what I see as a war on Christianity...
Obama knows(yes he knows) that he is not constitutionally empowered to pick and choose which laws will be enforced. This is a might-makes-right presidency, and if Barack Obama has been from time to time muddled and contradictory, he has been clear on the point that he has no intention of being limited by something so trivial as the law.
Unfortunately, the Founders expected that Congress would be more concerned about its own powers and prerogatives than this one seems to be..
My point is, He is nothing like George Bush..
OldTrapper
Well-Known Member
Ah, but he is much like Bush, and those before him. As an example, and I won't get into too much more then what I have already posted, remember Bush's "signing statements"? As to Obamacare, or perhaps more rightly it should be called "Romneycare", no one knows as of yet what will happen when it is fully implemented. Yet what is the big difference in what is happening now and what happened with Prescription Part D, and then the advantage, and supplemental, programs? Do you remember when the Bush administration estimated it would cost 9 billion, and then it went to 900 Billion? And I don;'t see where the EPA has punished any State. Care to give an example? And I am not sure what you mean about the war. It is the same game plan as instituted by Bush, and it is still an unConstitutional "war" as it was when Bush, and the Congress, approve it.
And unfortunately the Founders were seeking an egalitarian society, not the plutocracy we now see.
Werbung:
Cruella
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2012
- Messages
- 4,311
Now that's almost funny. Apparently Obama can see what's going to happen when Obamacare is fully implemented, otherwise he wouldn't have postponed five parts of it until after the 2014 election.
