90 days, Mr. President

Law, the Constitution, national events, etc.

90 days, Mr. President

Postby etowah » Wed Nov 11, 2009 10:02 pm

Three months have passed since General McCrystal has requested 40,000 more troops.
In the meantime, President Obama has delayed and stalled in making a decision, all the
while saying that he won't rush things. Well, before you visit North Korea next week,
Mr. President, why don't you fulfill your responsibilities to the thousands of Americans
serving in Iraq and Afghanistan?
He who keeps on dropping the ball doesn't
want to be in the game.
etowah
 
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 9:15 pm
Location: Florida

Re: 90 days, Mr. President

Postby 4tees » Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:38 am

It certainly seems Obama is waiting for "public opinion" to guide his decisions rather than making any decision based on merit alone. Obama proves more so each day that he is but another typical politician, out to win elections for his party and himself, rather than make things better for Americans.

What bothers me Etowah, is that you are more than willing to point out Obama's flaws, yet you still stand by Bush; whose flaws were far more substantial than those demonstrated by Obama to date. It seems you are employing a double standard; Republicans/Conservatives can do no wrong/deserve no criticism, but Democrats deserve criticism when they do exactly the same things you defended Republicans for doing?

Both Parties are out to do nothing but foreward their own selfish agendas, and will continue to get away with doing so as long as people continue to support them blindly.
Don't be a sheeple
User avatar
4tees
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 10:17 pm
Location: 3250 ft in Beautiful WNC

Re: 90 days, Mr. President

Postby Thomas » Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:28 pm

It doesn't certainly seem so to be 4tees. The public, as usual, hasn't a clue and opinions vary even among advisers so, do we really want the man rush to judgment? After all, this thing has been dragging on for 8 years and requires something closer to a final solution than just another band aid so what's another month or two? I think this is a point in time when the commander in chief, being the constitutionally named civilian authority, needs to make a decision that is not overly influenced by tactical military objectives. I still lean toward trusting him and was quite pleased to see he was moving away from providing the troops McChrystalmeth was asking for. :mrgreen:

I am firmly behind those who think Afghanistan is never going to be subdued by any external force. I've been advocating withdrawal for years and believe whole heartedly that due to the nature of Islam and it's dominance in the region, we need to get our "Christian" asses to hell out of the Middle east. This whole affair more and more takes on the appearance of a war between cultures. Enough of the "Liberal" BS attitude we need to save the region from religious tyranny. Our presence there, as in Iraq, serves as a recruiting tool for Islamic militants.
"You teach best what you most need to learn." ~ Richard Bach
User avatar
Thomas
 
Posts: 1055
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:26 am
Location: Fletcher, NC

Re: 90 days, Mr. President

Postby Thomas » Thu Nov 12, 2009 5:35 pm

Dissenting opinion and inside dope from our man in Kabul. With stuff like this coming to light is it any wonder the President is hanging back? We really should not be supporting a corrupt Afghani government.

As US Ambassador Casts Doubt on Troop Increase in Afghanistan, New Report Reveals US Indirectly Funding the Taliban
Taliban-ben-web

In a last-minute dissent ahead of a critical war cabinet meeting on escalating the Afghan war, US Ambassador Karl Eikenberry has cast doubt on a troop escalation until the Afghan government can address corruption and other internal problems. Meanwhile, a report reveals how the US government is financing the very same insurgent forces in Afghanistan that American and NATO soldiers are fighting. Investigative journalist Aram Roston traces how the Pentagon’s civilian contractors in Afghanistan end up paying insurgent groups to protect American supply routes from attack.


http://www.democracynow.org/2009/11/12/taliban
"You teach best what you most need to learn." ~ Richard Bach
User avatar
Thomas
 
Posts: 1055
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:26 am
Location: Fletcher, NC

Re: 90 days, Mr. President

Postby 4tees » Thu Nov 12, 2009 5:44 pm

I'm not advocating a quick or rash decision on Afghanistan, nor commenting specifically on that issue (yes, I should have made that more clear). I'm actually with you on the issue of Afghanistan (and the middle east and the rest of the world for the matter) and believe we should get the heck outta there and fix our problems at home. What I'm referring to is Obama's seeming unwillingness to commit to things that are factually and irrefutably (by any logical or rational arguement) the right thing to do, even if those things are unpopular with some segments of society (namely those with power, money, and influence). I'm sorry that Obama is not living up to the hype; but he simply is not. He is behaving like a typical politician who leads by the polls, and is placing more emphasis on ensuring he and his party are re-elected, than in fixing our nations problems. We need a real leader, a President who will "fight to the death" for the American people, and Obama does not seem up to the task.
Don't be a sheeple
User avatar
4tees
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 10:17 pm
Location: 3250 ft in Beautiful WNC

Re: 90 days, Mr. President

Postby Thomas » Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:38 pm

Well, he is a politician, maybe better than most but a politican is a politician. There is a basic flaw in the makeup of men who seek power. Sure, I reckon the world being what it is, we need such people but the system is to blame to a large degree. He is trying to do the impossible, rule by consensus with a government that has been split in two diametrically opposing parts for over a decade now, maybe more like three decades. I can't speak with authority on when this schism began. I just recall voting for two Republicans senators from NY, Keating and Javits, and a Republican Governor named Nelson Rockefeller. When, exactly, was the last time I could have considered that, I don't recall? Actually, I gave up totally on both parties circa 1968 and literally didn't vote, not once, between McGovern and Bush Jr. Truth is, I'm very very close to withdrawing from the political scene once again, for the last time, no doubt. It simply doesn't fit with my view of the remainder of my life. I've pretty much lost the stomach for conflicts of any kind so I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to discuss some of this stuff in a rational manner.

I've said this other times and other places, I say it again here, the day Siran Siran killed Bobby was the day politics died for me. I guess I was holding out some hope that Obama would change that. As you might note, I'm still hoping but I fear I am siding with progressives where the whole health care thing is concerned. That means single payer and/or an absolute end to the profit motive in the whole business. It's an obscenity that we should be filling the pockets of fat cats with our illnesses. Do you realize that a very large private corporation administers Medicare? Nobody seems to talk about that, they just go on talking about how broke the system is and blaming it on the government. It's called CIGNA and I gotta ask, are they not responsible if the system they are being paid to administer is not doing well? Maybe I'm stupid, but this looks to me like the same crap that's going on with other outsourcing which I think has added to the cost of government.

You want to pick on Obama, I would pick on him for making deals with these people behind closed doors. A real reformer would be about taking down the whole system of payoffs by lobbyists. Who the hell can we trust anymore. Even AARP which is supposed to be taking care of my interests as a retiree is in bed with big insurance. Seems like a conflict of interest, doesn't it? On the one side they support reform, on the other they make money off United Health Care, the big guy which sells their supplementary insurance. We should not need supplementary insurance. Medicare should do the job. Truthfully I would be in sorry damn shape if I didn't have my retirement policy which is composed of United Health Care Blue Cross/Blue Shield. I thank the strong public unions in my home state for this. For example, the drug that keeps me walking is Humira, $20 copay for a three month supply retail value near about $4200. I also don't pay nearly as much as many do, in premiums.
"You teach best what you most need to learn." ~ Richard Bach
User avatar
Thomas
 
Posts: 1055
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:26 am
Location: Fletcher, NC

Re: 90 days, Mr. President

Postby 4tees » Fri Nov 13, 2009 7:49 pm

Thomas wrote:You want to pick on Obama, I would pick on him for making deals with these people behind closed doors. A real reformer would be about taking down the whole system of payoffs by lobbyists. Who the hell can we trust anymore.


Which is a large part of the reason why I say Obama is not up to the task. Back room deals with those who are hurting America are not the type of thing a real leader would do. He would attack those interests head on. He would attack every player in the medical industry, every player in the financial collapse, and every other overcompensated traitor who put their individual greed before the well being of this nation.
Don't be a sheeple
User avatar
4tees
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 10:17 pm
Location: 3250 ft in Beautiful WNC

Re: 90 days, Mr. President

Postby Thomas » Sat Nov 14, 2009 12:26 pm

4tees wrote:
Thomas wrote:You want to pick on Obama, I would pick on him for making deals with these people behind closed doors. A real reformer would be about taking down the whole system of payoffs by lobbyists. Who the hell can we trust anymore.


Which is a large part of the reason why I say Obama is not up to the task. Back room deals with those who are hurting America are not the type of thing a real leader would do. He would attack those interests head on. He would attack every player in the medical industry, every player in the financial collapse, and every other overcompensated traitor who put their individual greed before the well being of this nation.


A candidate can say many things looking from the outside but once he takes office and reality strikes home who knows. I don't believe any of us can rightly judge sitting at home in front of our computers or TVs. I doubt we have ever, in our whole history, had a leader that meets some ideal we might have. They cannot, by the very nature of things, live up to our expectations. I agree with Dubya on this one pint, history will be the judge. This man gets his four years and then we shall see, but even then, look how many fools opted for four more years of one of the worst presidents to ever sit in the oval office. :roll:
"You teach best what you most need to learn." ~ Richard Bach
User avatar
Thomas
 
Posts: 1055
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:26 am
Location: Fletcher, NC

Re: 90 days, Mr. President

Postby etowah » Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:42 pm

Obama's main concern in his first year has been paying back those who helped elect him, not
make decisions in the best interest of the whole country. This is best illustrated with the contents
of the health bill the HR passed. It is full of attacks and new taxes on business, yet there is not one
mention of tort reform.
He who keeps on dropping the ball doesn't
want to be in the game.
etowah
 
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 9:15 pm
Location: Florida


Return to National Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron