Obama's biggest fault: WEAKNESS

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 01:55 AM
link   
First of all, I loudly and defiantly proclaim myself an INDEPENDENT in every sense of the word. I am not a "Republican" nor a "Democrat." I do not think the country would be doing any better if McCain had won, for example.

I feel that the office of the presidency has been dwindling since the days of Kennedy and Nixon. These were the last two presidents to make bold moves and enemies among TPTB, and they were punished (in different ways) for stepping too far out of line (in different ways). Since then, each sucessive president has had less and less power to do real things. You want to know where the power REALLY lies? Its not in the oval offfice: its at the Fed, or the Goldman Sachs boardroom, or the Military-Industrial complex, or big pharma, or big agribusiness, etc etc...we live in an age of SYSTEMS, not INDIVIDUALS.

EVEN SO, the President does have a remarkable amount of POWER at his disposal, should he choose to use it. Andrew Jackson shut down the US central bank of the time; why can't Obama? Lincoln refused to borrow money from the bankers to finance the civil war and created the greenabck instead. BIG, BOLD MOVES.

So far, all we've gotten from Obama is smooth talks and snappy hand-waves. Let's cut to the chase. Its time for some BIG, BOLD MOVES. Is Obama a Lincoln or an Andrew Jackson? Does he have what he takes? Or is he another Rutherford B. Hayes?



[edit on 9/30/09 by silent thunder]




posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by silent thunder
 


There are plenty of former bush supporters and libertarians calling themselves "independents" so your not alone, and if you feel that somehow assists this assumption of your impartiality, power to you I guess.

In reply to your argument, It really depends on your own personal view of weakness and that can greatly be distorted ideologically. Most ATSers took Carter as a "weak president" because supposedly he didnt do something about the Iranian revolution, as if the man was suppose to send US troops to invade and "change the nation". Some blame him for the hostage crises, despite the fact that it was a delicate process that required negotiation, not cowboy tactics. Really the arguments of "weakness" from much here are really their personal dissatisfaction to what is a situation thats not so straight forward.


EVEN SO, the President does have a remarkable amount of POWER at his disposal,


Well in terms of military he does have alot of power I agree, and with his presidential privilages his influencial but that doesnt mean he can change minds that easily. As many have stated here, congress is just as influencial and there a diverse views there and even in his own party there are differences. So as influencial as the president is, that doesnt automatically dictate the path of congress and the rest of government which actually is fortunate given different views and objections.


So far, all we've gotten from Obama is smooth talks and snappy hand-waves.


So far his been carrying out some of his promises and with 8 months out of 4 years his still got plenty of time. People blame him for changing too much then people blame him for changing little. Some people cant make up their minds really. You thought that his snapy hand-waves were going to change the world? Wouldnt common sense be that 8 months into his presidency not everything would be all gravy? I certainly didnt hear him say the issues will be solved in a matter of months, infact during his campaign he was blamed for being somewhat alarmists in his comments regarding the economy and his proposals and the time they will take. You can blame him for being a good speak but your certainly cant accuse the man for promising pixie dust.... because he made no such promise.

SG

[edit on 30-9-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by silent thunder
 


There are plenty of former bush supporters and libertarians calling themselves "independents" so your not alone, and if you feel that somehow assists this assumption of your impartiality, power to you I guess.


Guess again. I voted Obama, holding my nose as I did so. I never supported or voted for the clown that sat on the throne before him, either.

Some people move in a one-dimensional world where you're either "left" or "right." Others take a less linear view of things and are willing to look beyond, behind, and between.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by silent thunder
Guess again. I voted Obama


Well, the comment that you were "independent" and no mention at all about you supposedly voting him in, would have done good to mention. However like I said, whatever makes you feel will better benefit your argument. Regarding your statement again, I stick to my statement above and you are most welcome to address it.

SG



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Regarding your statement again, I stick to my statement above and you are most welcome to address it.

SG


In addition to his millitary powers, the president has other extraordinary powers. I gave two examples: Andrew Jackson abolishing the central bank of his day, and Lincoln staring down a table of furious bankers and creating the US treasury rather than borrow money from bankers and create a new central bank. No, the banksters had to wait for senile, stroke-addled Pres. Wilson to come along before they could slip the Federal Reserve Act under the doormat. Here's another idea: FDR created the New Deal, helping to pull the US out of the depression.

This is a time for bold moves that change the very INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE of the economy, rather than peacemeal mincing and prancing. I want to see moves along those lines: The destruction of the Fed, for example. If Jackson could do it, why couldn't Obama? How about some thinking out of the box, instead of surrounding himself with the same gang of Goldman-Sachs almuni that kept Clinton on the straight-and-narrow? How about some chest-thumping, table-pounding CHANGE?



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by silent thunder
In addition to his millitary powers, the president has other extraordinary powers. I gave two examples: Andrew Jackson abolishing the central bank of his day, and Lincoln staring down a table of furious bankers and creating the US treasury rather than borrow money from bankers and create a new central bank.


19th century resolve to 21st century issues. The world has changed since the day of the wagon my friend. Kudos to them though



FDR created the New Deal, helping to pull the US out of the depression.


FDR also spent like heck to stimulate the economy. Since his day and world war 2 later the debt was actually in decline. Today there is a much different attitude to what FDR did.


This is a time for bold moves


Public healthcare not bold enough?
Establishing firm relations with russia not bold enough?

Or is your only solution to end the FED? Then what? Do you think ending the fed was going to solve the financial crises in 8 months? Did you know the FED accounts for 9% of US debt. Its still alot of money but it certainly wont solve our debt crises. Maybe the central bank back in 19 century was a large elephant in a young developing large nation, but its the 21st century. We have a tonne of issues that move beyond the "FED" and they will no all be solved in a matter of months, no matter whos elected. Applying 19th century solutions to matters concerning the 21st century wont help either.

SG



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 03:25 AM
link   
Andrew "the war hero" Jackson didn't actually abolish the bank of the United States, he simply vetoed it's renewal charter. Same difference, though, I guess.

The veto speech is an interesting read, because he specifically says that the bank is divided up into shares (like a stock) and owned by various international bankers who collected dividends from the money being paid back to the bank.

It was nothing short of a windfall profit machine. There's no other way to describe it. It was just a big, fat, scam. People who weren't even Americans were basically stealing huge amounts of money from the American people.

To make matters worse, the guys in charge of the money (being that they could make however much of it they wanted) were able to bribe senators and congressmen and cause recessions. They used ECONOMICS to wreak havoc on America. Just like America uses ECONOMICS to bring third world nations to their knees, today.

Economics is the most powerful weapon ever conceived.


Oh, by the way, you can read the Veto Speech Here

[edit on 30-9-2009 by Kaytagg]





new topics
 
0

log in

join