DescentBB

CUDA wrote:it has to do with leadership and being a leader. something this President has been lacking. Reagan had those qualities. Obama does not.

he has different qualities, to be sure, but leadership takes many forms. I, for one, felt that Reagan was less a leader and more a cheerleader. Obama tends to quietly and intelligently go about the job.

IMO, There are many important qualities in a President that Obama doesn't exibit, such as making decisions based on his gut. I'd also like to se a much more transparent administration from him, as well as a mindset that truly represented the people.

SilverFJ wrote:IMO, There are many important qualities in a President that Obama doesn't exibit, such as making decisions based on his gut

Please explain how gut decisions are a good thing.

If you know something is right, do it because it is right, not to, for example, try to get re-elected.
I don't want to confuse this with Obama trying to shove Obamacare, that was something he tried to promise to get elected but couldn't pull off the right way.

SilverFJ wrote:IMO, There are many important qualities in a President that Obama doesn't exibit

such as spelling, no doubt.

such as making decisions based on his gut. I'd also like to se a much more transparent administration from him, as well as a mindset that truly represented the people.

decisions based upon 'his gut'? You mean, like, leaving that whole brain thing out of it? As far as representing the mindset of the people, he probably does so far more than any other prominent national figure. The polls would bear that out, to a great extent. Most Americans are pragmatic, not ideological, just for starters.

Your mainstream media polls can never be trusted, from Faux to msnbc. Most people are idiots, anyway.

For the record, I used to be a Faux News fanatic, but even I, probably the most right-wing person on this board, even saw through their trash recently. I can't say much better for msnbc though either.

SilverFJ wrote:Your mainstream media polls can never be trusted, from Faux to msnbc. Most people are idiots, anyway.

well, some folks go out of their way to demonstrate that last part, huh?

For the record, I used to be a Faux News fanatic, but even I, probably the most right-wing person on this board, even saw through their trash recently. I can't say much better for msnbc though either.

I'd agree with both of the above. I find news best gathered from a bunch of sources and then digested by one's ownself. However, I am not so quick to dismiss reliable polling sources(and there are several). Think of the logic you used above, by the way, to dismiss them: You can't trust the source and people are idiots.
Does either of those statements in any way refute my claim?

You gotta take the bad with the good, dude, people may be idiots but they are still our countrymen.

Sure, probably the truth, but the only problem with freedom is that the idiots get to vote too.

SilverFJ wrote:You gotta take the bad with the good, dude, people may be idiots but they are still our countrymen.

would you also agree that perhaps a great deal of our nation's issues are a result of a society that creates more and more idiots?(see my comment, elsewhere in the Sharia thread, about the real issues facing us).

In my lifetime if there is one thing I have learned to trust, it’s my gut instincts. (no it doesn’t mean your brain has no part in it, that’s just stupid)

I've learned that there is more to reason, if you will, than logic. Logic is a tool, and it is very useful, but it is not synonymous with reason or truth. Logic could be said, I think, to be the best puzzle fitted together by our conscious mind, using pieces that are actually created to encapsulate ideas or facts into a form that can be rationally used to formulate or define a big picture that we can consciously/rationally work with. I have to chuckle ruefully when a person makes fun of going with your gut or instinct, or faith. It lets me know that they're ignorant of the limitations of logic for life. Sometimes your gut/instinct knows something your imperfect logic will not conclude. That, as far as I'm concerned, is still the domain of the mind. The Bible teaches that people have a spirit as well, and there are senses that go together with that.

I think the problem with 'gut level' judgement is that it seldom seems very nuanced, and in the context of being President of the US in the year 2011, nuance is involved in nearly every situation. At any rate, I think what one sees with Obama's election is a pendulum swing away from the behavior and decision making style of GW Bush. And that he is, a very deliberate(painfully so, at times) man who weighs matters very carefully before moving. For those who would suggest that it is all poll-driven(a la the Clintons) or re-election driven, I would suggest otherwise. The Healthcare Bill alone should convince you that this is a leader who is trying to wrench the best outcome possible from the dysfunctional backwash that is our Congress, for the good of the nation. He was right about the fact that we will never be competitive enough in the global market, nor stable enough in terms of our personal economies, without greater stability in healthcare coverage. Am I fully satisfied with the outcome? No, but my point in bringing it up is to illustrate the decision process that does make Obama a leader.

callmeslick wrote:

what Obama is would be a 'pragmatist'. He believes in doing what needs to be done for the common good of the nation with little regard for ideology. That was who he was, who he is, and who he will continue to be.
What is astounding is that so few people seem to have noticed that from the outset. I'm forever amused by liberals 'appalled' at his not pursuing liberal ideals, matched by conservatives who paint him as 'communist' when he clearly is not.

Right and that is why we are now in the process of repealing Obama Care because so many people wanted it. Obama is also the reason we came close to shutting down the country 'cause last October, when he and the Dems controlled everything, they couldn't get a budget passed. So much for the common good.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:somehow I cant see Obama going on National TV and telling ANY federal Union get back to work or your fired. and then when they tried to call his bluff. following through on the threat.
I can't see Obama going on nation TV and telling Mr. Gorbachev TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!!

and those two examples accomplished what, exactly? Seriously, the USSR was on the way out due to foolish spending and other decisions.

The USSR was going broke because they tried to keep up with us militarily and we out spent them.

callmeslick wrote:And, declaring war on unions, which was started under Reagan, goes VERY far in explaining how the average worker in the US has seen both pay and benefits shrink for 30 years. How inspirational!

The Air Traffic Controllers union was in the process of shutting the country down by going on strike. Reagan gave them a ultimatum and the union bosses were so filled with their own importance that they could not see through the smoke of their $20.00 cigars.

What is uninspirational is how govt. and state employees seem to be doing quite well off the backs of all those whose wages have not increased/

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:it has to do with leadership and being a leader. something this President has been lacking. Reagan had those qualities. Obama does not.

he has different qualities, to be sure, but leadership takes many forms. I, for one, felt that Reagan was less a leader and more a cheerleader. Obama tends to quietly and intelligently go about the job.

Yes, like intelligently getting involved in beer summits, avoiding the Iran uprising and playing brackets when Japan was undergoing a national tragedy. The guy is so intelligent he sends the wife and kids on a multi-million dollar trip to Spain while the average tax payer is having his home foreclosed. Obama is so danged intelligent and concerned he closed the gulf to drilling, causing tens of thousands of people to lose their jobs all the while proclaiming jobs are his main focus.

callmeslick wrote: He was right about the fact that we will never be competitive enough in the global market, nor stable enough in terms of our personal economies, without greater stability in healthcare coverage. .

Right and the economic boom of, say, the 90's was because we had as national health care program. Would you care to point out any other nation with socialised medicine that are competitive and stable? England? France? Cuba? Did we have socialized medicine for the last 300 years while we grew to be the strongest nation on earth? Please explain.

Entitlement is the one thing they all seem to have in common.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

what Obama is would be a 'pragmatist'. He believes in doing what needs to be done for the common good of the nation with little regard for ideology. That was who he was, who he is, and who he will continue to be.
What is astounding is that so few people seem to have noticed that from the outset. I'm forever amused by liberals 'appalled' at his not pursuing liberal ideals, matched by conservatives who paint him as 'communist' when he clearly is not.

Right and that is why we are now in the process of repealing Obama Care because so many people wanted it. Obama is also the reason we came close to shutting down the country 'cause last October, when he and the Dems controlled everything, they couldn't get a budget passed. So much for the common good.

um, don't count on that repeal thing going anywhere. Yes, what we should have done is expanded Medicare from birth to death, and thus maintained some spending control over the whole thing, but this was what could be done. As for the budget, you are correct. The Dems punted, rather than do something to hurt their election chances......kinda ironic, in that they got their asses handed to them. It would have, IMO, been far better for them to have forced the GOP to lay out, pre-election, exactly what they wished to cut, but that's their choice. Evidence since Jan 1 shows that the public, by and large, are appalled by the GOP choice of paying for tax cuts for the wealthy on the backs of the indigent and elderly.

woodchip wrote:What is uninspirational is how govt. and state employees seem to be doing quite well off the backs of all those whose wages have not increased/

what is astounding is that non-union private sector workers, after 20 plus years of wages not increasing and benefits getting slashed, would wish to eliminate those benefits for folks who had the good sense to organize to keep what they earn and deserve.

Yeah what ever you think of the unions, right now at this point in time, they must be upheld as strong as possible.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote: He was right about the fact that we will never be competitive enough in the global market, nor stable enough in terms of our personal economies, without greater stability in healthcare coverage. .

Right and the economic boom of, say, the 90's was because we had as national health care program. Would you care to point out any other nation with socialised medicine that are competitive and stable? England? France? Cuba?

well, two of those weren't doing too badly until they elected leaders who wish to slash government in the wake of an international economic downturn. Still, if we're going to cherry-pick, Germany, Denmark,
Sweden, Norway and China seem to have been doing better than most, in the recent economic downturn.
All have, to varying degrees, socialized medicine. Canada would be a better analogy, if I had to pick one.
For most private employers, soaring insurance costs are one of the largest unpredictable economic hurdles they face in the US. Not good.

Did we have socialized medicine for the last 300 years while we grew to be the strongest nation on earth? Please explain.

are we still living in an agrarian economy? Did people freaking die as a result of inequities in the past.
Lack of socialized, or any other healthcare(for God's sake, they were using leeches in 1776!) had utterly nothing to do with the rise of the US. Education, opportunity and industrial production, coupled with a very restrained foreign policy landed us where we are. Nothing more, nothing less.

flip wrote:Entitlement is the one thing they all seem to have in common.

Sort of like Michelle Bachmann(and myownself for the sake of disclosure) are entitled to tax rebates because we own a lot of 'agricultural' land? Sort of like making money from dividends and other investment profits 'entitles' one to get taxed at 15% instead of the normal income tax rate?(I've made a bundle off of that one, too, before anyone suggests that I am whining because of being left out). The bottom line is this:
"entitlement", all too often, is a term folks use to refer to breaks that other people get. In my opinion, every citizen ought to be 'entitled' to minimal healthcare, good education and a minimal pension in old-age. Your mileage might vary, but at least my rationale is based on the idea of a civil society that remains civil through good times and bad.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:What is uninspirational is how govt. and state employees seem to be doing quite well off the backs of all those whose wages have not increased/

what is astounding is that non-union private sector workers, after 20 plus years of wages not increasing and benefits getting slashed, would wish to eliminate those benefits for folks who had the good sense to organize to keep what they earn and deserve.

Not when union bosses control the Democrats and get sweet deals when the Dems are in charge. No reason why people who got layed off, read about the extravegant benefits of govt. workers, are going to have any sense of equanimity towards govt. workers? Class warfare work two ways.

but at least my rationale is based on the idea of a civil society that remains civil through good times and bad.

Lol, yeah, but if I were you, I'd still think about a keeping a firearm close. I can make endless arguments that shows that's way outside the realm of reality.

woodchip wrote:Class warfare work two ways.

and yet, one side generally wins. Ever wonder why? Or, ever wonder how the rubes on the bottom are consistently stupid enough to get gulled into the concept of 'trickle on your head' economics?

flip wrote:

but at least my rationale is based on the idea of a civil society that remains civil through good times and bad.

Lol, yeah, but if I were you, I'd still think about a keeping a firearm close. I can make endless arguments that shows that's way outside the realm of reality.

the purpose of said 'firearm'? The problem, you see, is a massively growing gap between rich and poor.
The saddest part is that folks who consider themselves 'middle class' really are part of the 'poor'. They've been sinking like bricks in a bathtub for over a generation, and when they wake up and realize what has happened, I fear it might be too late. I'm not hatin' on the rich here. Hell, I've been well-off my whole life. My family has had money, land and some power since the late 17th century. It's just that I've spent my adult life watching certain 'entitled' folks I grew up with and around, become very blase to the idea that the rest of you all can just eat dirt and we'll still be ok. Historically, that has proven very dangerous, from the French and Russian revolutions on forward. And, to conclude my thought, all that history will render the 'firearm' useless, unless it is to bring upon myself a less painful end.

callmeslick wrote:

flip wrote:

but at least my rationale is based on the idea of a civil society that remains civil through good times and bad.

Lol, yeah, but if I were you, I'd still think about a keeping a firearm close. I can make endless arguments that shows that's way outside the realm of reality.

the purpose of said 'firearm'?

I got to watch up close the Detroit Riot in the mid 60's. I have a very positive view on keeping and bearing arms.

Well, I can't find anything I disagree with there except, I wouldn't live to far in the future. Taking precautions seems like a good idea, no?

flip wrote:Well, I can't find anything I disagree with there except, I wouldn't live to far in the future. Taking precautions seems like a good idea, no?

sensible precautions, sure. But, simply grabbing a gun is NEVER a sensible precaution, if what you are trying to avoid is wholesale revolt by the starving masses.

callmeslick wrote:

flip wrote:Well, I can't find anything I disagree with there except, I wouldn't live to far in the future. Taking precautions seems like a good idea, no?

sensible precautions, sure. But, simply grabbing a gun is NEVER a sensible precaution, if what you are trying to avoid is wholesale revolt by the starving masses.

If it gets to the point where the masses are starving, not having a firearm and knowing how to use it, may be your worst decision ever. If you would like a hint of how the govt. will handle the masses, I refer you to the WW1 vets protest in Washington to collect the bonus pay they were promised:

"On July 28, U.S. Attorney General William D. Mitchell ordered the veterans removed from all government property. Washington police met with resistance, shots were fired and two veterans were wounded and later died. President Herbert Hoover then ordered the army to clear the veterans' campsite. Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur commanded the infantry and cavalry supported by six tanks. The Bonus Army marchers with their wives and children were driven out, and their shelters and belongings burned."

Shhh, woodchip, you're giving away the secret!

It's always comical to see folks suggest how they are going to hold off the US government/military with fireams. Are you folks aware of the resources available, were they used? Hell, the US government could incinerate you, eviscerate you or eliminate you altogether without being within 500 miles of you(until the last minute or so).
Back to the topic at hand.....The only purpose I could see for arming myself would be hunting for food and self-protection from single or small numbers of assailants. Wholesale revolt of, say, 98% of the public against the remaining 2% with material wealth wouldn't hinge on the 2% arming themselves.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:What is uninspirational is how govt. and state employees seem to be doing quite well off the backs of all those whose wages have not increased/

what is astounding is that non-union private sector workers, after 20 plus years of wages not increasing and benefits getting slashed, would wish to eliminate those benefits for folks who had the good sense to organize to keep what they earn and deserve.

What definition of "deserve" are you working with!?!? Unions are a long way from what they once were. You seem to be clinging to the romantic saints-of-the-sweatshop-workers era when today what you have is a very different animal! Political pimps keeping the whores on the 'street' and the campaign donor list for the gangsters in the big black limo's with Congress on the license tag...

Will Robinson wrote:What definition of "deserve" are you working with!?!?

.....the definition which holds that it's completely nuts for Chief Executives to make over 250 times the pay of entry level workers. That is where we are, in the US, today, and it is obscene. To put this in a fair context, my Dad was Vice President of R and D for the Dupont Company in the 1970s. He was paid well. He was paid roughly 12 times the entry level wage for chemists and engineers. The President made roughly 30 times base. Neither of them starved. In fact both of them lived very, very well. The entry level workers, who did their job well, could expect a 30 year career, with a pension equal to 50% of final salary. Retirees got full health coverage for life.
Now, DuPont was a non-union shop, but they ran things in that way because of the pressure from union shops fighting for the benefits of their own employees. What has happened since around 1980 is a systematic attack on unions, and the fair compensation of ALL workers. Bringing you to the status quo: 20 years of essentially stagnant wages for workers, a drastic reduction in health benefits and virtually no pensions funded without significant contributions from the workers themselves. The sweatshop era might not be all that far into the future on the trajectory we've been maintaining.

Political pimps keeping the whores on the 'street' and the campaign donor list for the gangsters in the big black limo's with Congress on the license tag...

nice story-line, but reality doesn't match your description. In short, what you are providing is the sort of line some folks would like you to believe. As I said on another thread, vilification of the opposition is an old tactic of war, and for some folks, the war against the workers in America has been a 25 year success.


note to mods---edited to remove 'colorful' language

callmeslick wrote:...
Historically, that has proven very dangerous, from the French and Russian revolutions on forward.


And, to conclude my thought, all that history will render the 'firearm' useless, unless it is to bring upon myself a less painful end.

What the heck do you think they waged those revolutions with?

callmeslick wrote:...

Political pimps keeping the whores on the 'street' and the campaign donor list for the gangsters in the big black limo's with Congress on the license tag...

nice story-line, but reality doesn't match your description. In short, what you are providing is the sort of line some folks would like you to believe. As I said on another thread, vilification of the opposition is an old tactic of war, and for some folks, the war against the workers in America has been a 25 year success.
...

It isn't a story line that unions are the tool of the democrat party. Nor that they seek to intimidate their members to vote for the democrat ticket or else suffer on the job.
Now how does that serve of the worker compared to how it serves the democrat party and the union bosses?
How is it that we have representatives in national office try to pass laws to ensure the union thugs can see the ballot cast by the members?!?
You can have collective bargaining without the connection to political power and serve the purpose the unions were designed for originally and any connection with any political party should be a the kind of thing that raises a major alarm in the media and shame for the party involved. That isn't the way it is though is it? And if it was the rightwing who held that card I wonder just what your story would be...lol!

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:...
Historically, that has proven very dangerous, from the French and Russian revolutions on forward.


And, to conclude my thought, all that history will render the 'firearm' useless, unless it is to bring upon myself a less painful end.

What the heck do you think they waged those revolutions with?

superior numbers, first and foremost.

Will Robinson wrote:It isn't a story line that unions are the tool of the democrat party. Nor that they seek to intimidate their members to vote for the democrat ticket or else suffer on the job.

all unions? All the time? Or, even a lot of the time? I'd sort of be interested in what proof you have of this.
Now, as a Democrat Party official and volunteer at times over the past 20 years, I've worked with a lot of Union employees, but NEVER have I seen any forceable involvement. Never have I encountered one union volunteer who even remotely suggested or gave the impression of ANY coercion. Further, I can cite you several examples of unions and union workers who chose to work for the other side. For instance, here in PA, Arlen Specter got a ton of Union support and volunteers in every GOP campaign he ran.

How is it that we have representatives in national office try to pass laws to ensure the union thugs can see the ballot cast by the members?!?

examples. please? Both of the laws and the proof about the thugs part.

You can have collective bargaining without the connection to political power and serve the purpose the unions were designed for originally and any connection with any political party should be a the kind of thing that raises a major alarm in the media and shame for the party involved.

nonsense. It would and should be the expected outcome that a labor union in linked to whichever party holds their interests dear. As it is the expected norm that management tends to back the party which holds their interests dear. That is politics, my friend. Nothing the least sinister. What ought to raise alarms is that so many people can be gulled into the concept that 'trickle down' economics or unfettered executive greed will ever serve the interests of the bulk of working people. Of course, when you find the 'people' gullible enough to believe the story-line that 'you, too, could one day become one of the rich', you can manage to pull off anything.

That isn't the way it is though is it? And if it was the rightwing who held that card I wonder just what your story would be...lol!

It isn't, or shouldn't be about 'right' or 'left' wings. What you, and a lot of others, seem to not get, is that the same small percentage of the US population pulls the strings and runs the show no matter WHO gets elected. The legal system works for them, the investment system works for them, the electoral system works for them. Further, by and large, 'them' are the same 'them' that ran things 150 years ago, or more.
And trust me on this: many of 'them' are laughing at the rubes that buy the nonsense.

callmeslick
"all unions? All the time? Or, even a lot of the time? I'd sort of be interested in what proof you have of this."

Might want to take a look here and see a breakdown:

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

I think you will see most if not all unions donating to the dems.