It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

White House to celebrate Motown with tribute concert.

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


Frankly, your opinion of the strength of my argument is immaterial. Leadership and one's view and definition of it are personal matters. I would much rather see the President sitting behind his desk and doing actual work, even if it is merely a photo op than slipping out the back door of the White House meeting with Lobbiests, going to galas and in general conducting himself with the comportment that is, in my opinion consistent with the state of both the countries and the world's issues at the moment. I certainly don't begrudge his taking time for himself and time with his family, but suggesting that a scheduling conflict was what prevented him from giving the world a statement on the situation in Libya is a bit disconcerting - to me.

You may hate GW Bush, but during his administration he stopped playing golf. He stopped because he felt that it sent the wrong message to the country when the country was at war. In my opinion, that was the appropriate move for the President.




posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by dolphinfan
Frankly, your opinion of the strength of my argument is immaterial. Leadership and one's view and definition of it are personal matters. I would much rather see the President sitting behind his desk and doing actual work, even if it is merely a photo op than slipping out the back door of the White House meeting with Lobbiests, going to galas and in general conducting himself with the comportment that is, in my opinion consistent with the state of both the countries and the world's issues at the moment.


Really? You prefer the illusion to the fact? Of course, you assume that he's doing no work, right?


I certainly don't begrudge his taking time for himself and time with his family,


You're obviously lying, since that's what you're complaining about.

[quite]but suggesting that a scheduling conflict was what prevented him from giving the world a statement on the situation in Libya is a bit disconcerting - to me.

Amazingly, the president is a busy man. I'm sure you think he's just sitting on the back porch, sucking watermelons and waiting on a welfare check to buy malt liquor with, but he is, in fact, pretty damned busy.


You may hate GW Bush, but during his administration he stopped playing golf. He stopped because he felt that it sent the wrong message to the country when the country was at war. In my opinion, that was the appropriate move for the President.




Considering he's the one who started the wars, that he didn't actually ever give up golfing, and that in the face of people getting killed by his decisions giving up golf is asinine, I don't think we can draw a model of leadership here.

It's not a question of love or hate, you're just wrong.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Only a matter of time before someone brought the race card into this thread. You must be proud.

Perhaps he is doing a lot of work - I don't doubt that he is working his tail off. I do doubt the productivity of his labor and view the country as rudderless at the moment, but again, I guess thats a racist opinion.

On just about every level I see this President as failing to provide leadership. In light of that, I simply don't think that hosting star-studded events is a prudent thing to do. How about seeing him sitting down with the congressional leadership trying to hammer out a budget agreement rather than sticking his nose into a state issue (Wisconsin)? How about addressing the issue on the southern border in a way other than not addressing it? How about actually coming up with pragmatic approaches to improve the job market? How about taking a look at the overnight polling data he receives every day and actually publically addressing the issues that matter?

But then again, if you disagree with this gent folks will assume you disagree with him because you are a racist. I did not care for Bush either and think his policies were a disaster, particularily in the foreign policy arena. I guess that makes me a member of the Black Panthers.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 



How about seeing him sitting down with the congressional leadership trying to hammer out a budget agreement rather than sticking his nose into a state issue (Wisconsin)?


Let's see, this is a two part question, so, let's answer it.

Well, he sent congress a budget, now it's up to them to hammer it out, it's called separation of powers, if he were to sit down with congressional leadership you would be on here bitching that he was doing things behind closed doors. Now the House and the Senate have to work it out.

As for that Wisconsin comment, what, he's not allowed to have an opinion? You really don't think this guy deserves any freedom whatsoever, I mean, so far you have shown that you don't think he should have any off time, he can't go anywhere outside of the White House, can't have anyone over to the White House, and now you want to take his 1st Amendment rights away from him. Is there any freedoms that this man is allowed to have according to you? I mean really, there is a 13th Amendment, or doesn't he deserve that?


How about addressing the issue on the southern border in a way other than not addressing it?


He has, but you aren't going to acknowledge that are you?

Barack Obama orders Guard to Mexican border

Not exactly perfect, but it's more than what the last president did.


How about actually coming up with pragmatic approaches to improve the job market?


How about not blaming the president for the job situation? The truth is that corporations have been running large profits for well over a year now and have barely started hiring. Obama can't snap his fingers and make things happen, companies have to do their part too, and they aren't.


How about taking a look at the overnight polling data he receives every day and actually publically addressing the issues that matter?


Poling data? How about running the country? You do know that the middle east is going up in flames right? It's a very tricky and delicate situation and you want him to waste time on polling numbers? Really?

You do want this guy to fail, which means that you want America to fail.


edit on 2/25/2011 by whatukno because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Really?

The budget was a non-starter and everyone knows it. He is not cutting anything significantly, did not begin to address entitlements and disregarded the majority of the recommendations from his bi-partisan debt task force. Separation of powers? The reason the entire healthcare bill is a disaster is because he walked away from the table and let Pelosi and Reid craft the bill that they never read. I'm all for separation of power, but on the large issues we need active engagement from the president. And, yes, on Wisconsin, he should have kept his comments to himself. His comments have fueled all of the other demonstrations in other states. Ironically, some of these will pass and unions will have their power cut further. They have been proposed in these other states because the states don't want to have the Feds engaged in what is clearly state business. His comments will actually hurt labor.

The Southern border? He has filed suit against Arizona, the situation is getting worse and he recently told Senator Kyl that he would refuse to do any more unless they congress passed comprehensive immigration reform. DHS has stopped building the virtual fence and the border agents sent down there are fullfilling largely administration functions - not on the ground enforcement. The VAST majority of the country wants the border secured prior to any further legislation on immigration. And, be honest, to Obama, immigration reform = amnesty. They just tried to get a piece of that via the Dream Act which thankfully was kiboshed by the republicans.

Jobs? The reason that firms are not hiring is due to the uncertainty they currently have regarding taxes and healthcare. As soon as that uncertainty is unlifted, jobs will improve. Banks are not lending money. Why? because they don't understand what the fiscal health of firms will be due to the uncertainty of the situation.

I don't want him to fail. I want him to do what he said he would do when he ran for the office and that would be a transparent, engaged, post-partisan leader who would seek pragmatic solutions to problems. He is an ideologue and is pushing an agenda that is far out of the mainstream. That is not why he was elected and thats why he won't be reelected.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


The budget was a start, just because it didn't eliminate every single program for the poor doesn't mean that it wasn't a start. Republicans however are trying to take this opportunity to attack the poor and middle class and not cut anything that has to do with defense.

And sorry, but the President still has his 1st Amendment rights despite your objections to them, perhaps to you no one deserves to have freedom of speech, but unfortunately for you we in this country do have the right to say our opinion on subjects, that freedom does actually apply to the president as well.

He should have filed suit against Arizona for their draconian and overreaching fascist law. It's the Federal Governments responsibility to secure the border, not Sheriff Joe's.

The President gave in on the tax cuts for businesses if you haven't noticed, the Bush era tax cuts actually went through, all of them, so that excuse for businesses is GONE, sorry, don't work anymore. Can't just keep jobs hostage until the President and Congress capitulate to the point that this is a corporate oligarchy.

Yes, you do want him to fail, you have made that abundantly clear. You want not only the president to fail, but you want the country to fail. Do us all a favor and turn off Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh for a little while, or balance it out with other media so that you aren't so brainwashed with right wing propaganda.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Only a matter of time before someone brought the race card into this thread. You must be proud.


No, but I am informed and I am educated in the use of rhetoric and the reading of context and author's intent. I know how propaganda is used, and I'm well versed in "code." Literacy is a whole lot more than just being able to repeat words on a page. If, for a moment you think that there is not a racial aspect going on here, then I am sad to inform you that you are painfully ignorant.

This thread might as well be titled "Barack Obama is uppity and doesn't know his place!" - matter of fact that could go for a lot of the discourse directed at him.


Perhaps he is doing a lot of work - I don't doubt that he is working his tail off. I do doubt the productivity of his labor and view the country as rudderless at the moment, but again, I guess thats a racist opinion.


Not at all racist. Just painfully misinformed. Y'see, the President is not a king. He does not rule by Fiat (and frankly I'm increasingly glad for that.) He can put in all the hours in the day, and whether it bears fruit is completely up to the legislative branch - which at the moment is dominated by the party who stated that their agenda is to make sure that Obama fails.


On just about every level I see this President as failing to provide leadership.


And I'm sure that with your already-stated bias, even if he were ot display tremendous leadership, you would ignore it. As you already have - presumably because the things he's shown leadership on don't conform to your own political desires.


In light of that, I simply don't think that hosting star-studded events is a prudent thing to do.


Well, fact is that out of the three hundred and seven million people in the United States, the vast majority really don't give a damn what you think. Being one of the unfortunate few exposed to your opinion, I have to wonder at your double standards here.

Barack Obama: hosts a one-day celebration of a cultural phenomena that revitalized American music
George Bush: Clowns around in his living room looking for the WMD's that he started a war over; a war in which over 4.439 Americans have lost their lives, along with nearly a million Iraqis and another four miullion displaced and refugees.

But Bush gave up golf, except on his golf day, so he deserves praise.


How about seeing him sitting down with the congressional leadership trying to hammer out a budgetagreement


Because he's already submitted a budget that bends over backwards to appease the republicans. Seriously, that thing looks like something ghostwritten by the Heritage Foundation.


rather than sticking his nose into a state issue (Wisconsin)?


Because what happens in Wisconsin will impact the rest of the nation. This isn't 1861 anymore; the states are not separate entities. What happens in one WILL affect what happens in another, and another. Thus a state issue often becomes a natiuonal issue. And when that issue has the potential to rip apart the already fragile economic standing of millions of Americans in the one state, and millions more elsewhere, I think it's very prudent for the president to weigh in.

By the by, ever noticed how "states rights" are always about the state's ability to strip rights and protections from someone conservatives hate? Why is that?


How about addressing the issue on the southern border in a way other than not addressing it?


Because he knows, just as well as I'm sure you do, that the border - like gay marriage and so many other right-wing "booga booga!" tactics, is nonsense.

Are people coming over the border illegally? Yup. Know what the solution is? Make it legal. Seriously, the primary reason for tight southern border security is mainly tradition; it's always been like that so we should always keep it that way. Of course this ignores the plain fact that that security is there thanks to the Eugenicist and blatantly racist foreign policies of the Wilson Administration. It made no logical sense then, and it makes no logical sense now.

If Mexican oranges and cucumbers can come across the border, there's no reason Mexican people shouldn't be able to as well, with the same precautions we have on the northenr border (which, ironically, prevents you from taking oranges and cucumbers on your fishing trips.)

The secondary reason for the "border problems" is the "War on drugs." All those drug lords in the northern Mexican states? They're funded pretty much directly by the DEA and Border patrol; these two agencies drive the price of drugs sky-high, resulting in exorbitant profits for the providers; and being addictive, the cost does not diminish the consumer demand. The solution here is again, legalize.

Basically, solving the border issues in any logical method results in more frenzied squealing from persons who are either pissed that mud people are coming into our pristine Aryan enclave, or that god's laws are being violated by allowing intoxicants to go unpunished by man's law.


How about actually coming up with pragmatic approaches to improve the job market?


Same reason he doesn't touch the border; all the intelligent and working solutions lean heavily to the left, which Obama - and the people who he's trying to kiss up to - most certainly do not. A massive public works programme would be very effective for both the job market and our nation's crumbling infrastructure.

Say it with me now, "BUT THAT'S SOCIALISM!!!!!!!"


How about taking a look at the overnight polling data he receives every day and actually publically addressing the issues that matter?


Didn't you just gripe about him saying something about Wisconsin?


But then again, if you disagree with this gent folks will assume you disagree with him because you are a racist.


That's a straw man, unfortunately. It's not the fact of disagreement, but the manner in which the disagreement is expressed. Again, context. Keep it in mind and you won't have to backpedal next time.


I did not care for Bush either and think his policies were a disaster, particularily in the foreign policy arena.


But he gave up golf except for when he went to play golf, so that makes him an A-list dude!


I guess that makes me a member of the Black Panthers.


No, because the Black Panthers contributed to the society around them. I just can't imagine that you would ever work a ladle in a soup kitchen, nor provide free daycare service for families running two or three jobs. So no, a Black Panther you definitely are not.
edit on 26/2/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


You're cracking me up. You're ability to discern racism in statements is an amazing talent. There is nothing racist in the OP nor in any of my posts.

I hope you realize that you are on the wrong side of history. The majority of this country:

- wants the borders shut, now
- wants the government to cut significantly more than Obama's lame attempt at fiscal responsibility
- wants his health care law repealed
- wants the public education system fixed and that can not be done absent freeing the system from the unions

In case you have not noticed, the governments of the world are turning their backs on this social democracy nonsense. France, Germany, UK, Sweden, The Netherlands, Greece have all recognized that the model simply does not work. The experiment with socialism has utterly failed.

Oh and over 50% of the population do not believe he deserves a second term. Based on your comments, you don't think he is being progressive enough. Great, I hope he gives you a call and takes your advice. In about 2 months his popularity will drop from the current 42% (+/- 3) to around 20.

The left has been passed by all over the world. The social democracys have largely failed and those countries are in fiscal ruin. The collectiveness notion of koombaya is not a viable way to organize a society.

Do I want him to fail? I certainly want him to fail to implement an agenda that I belive would be an absolute disaster and significantly socialist. Do I want him the man to fail? That I have an opinion on his agenda and hope that he will not be able to implement it makes me have the desire to see the country fail? It means exactly the opposite.

Don't worry though, as the country moves to a more limited government, federalist, pro free market one, there will be plenty of opportunities for you to use your amazing skills at disecting comments and finding the racist boogyman.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join