jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (50 posts)

I think I know what the problem is with The President.

  1. Drhu profile image59
    Drhuposted 4 years ago

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/oba … 04716.html

    I believe lot's of the folks here want him to just order things done and he has either discovered or wants us to believe he has discovered, that he can't do that.

    1. profile image60
      whoisitposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think his problem runs a little deeper than that.

      1. Drhu profile image59
        Drhuposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well I didn't say this was a total and complete analysis.
        What do you think.....

        if you are like me I think it's balloon juice he thinks people want to hear.

        1. profile image60
          whoisitposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I think he wants to hear himself talk.

          1. profile image0
            Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yep.
            But now he's adding a feature to it---------he's calling for citizens to do the dirty work he hasn't been able to do.    That's my take on the video clip anyway.      He wants citizens to put pressure on their Congressmen to do what HE SAYS of course.    For the people who can't see his motivations, of course, it sounds like he's inviting all citizens to take more part in their government.   LOLOL.    Eh, if he really wanted that from all citizens, he would've paid attention to the pro-Life rallies held under his very nose. 
            So, nope, he still doesn't give a whit about right and wrong.   He's still pushing his agenda.   Time after time.  Speech after speech.   He is the ultimate drone.

            1. Drhu profile image59
              Drhuposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It's so unfair that he can't just decree it.........

              1. lone77star profile image89
                lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You mean like Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin or Chairman Mao?

                How about the reluctant tyrant of Star Wars, Chancellor Palpatine (evil incarnate)?

                Are you bloody crazy? Decree it? What? Creating more war, shredding the Constitution, and throwing anyone who disagrees with him in prison or worse?

                Everything America was based upon is being torn apart by politicians, starting with Johnson in the 1960s. And Wilson didn't help us much in 1913, either, letting the bankers take control of our currency.

                Obama is a silver-tongued devil, telling us sweet lies while stabbing America in the back.

                He swore to protect the Constitution, but has continuously betrayed his Oath of Office -- Treason!

                Here's just one of hundreds of examples:
                Not only did he promise to close Guantanamo prison and didn't, but he said that prisoners should be kept there indefinitely (forever) even if they are found to be innocent.

                Wake up! America is being sucked dry by a vampire of biblical proportions and his name is Obama. And I voted for the guy 4 years ago! Boy was I blind!

    2. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Well that is a problem that all presidents who don't control both the Senate and Congress have.

    3. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I voted for Obama but only after seeing nothing redeming about Romney who just wanted to further a deeper run into profit at all cost mentality. His foreign relations would have surely plunged us into more war.
      I am very disappointed in Obamas' unwillingness to propose a budget all the while spending at a catastrophic rate. How can you stop the sequester without first agreeing on a budget?
      I see the current fight in congress as one that instead of promoting the Yin and Yan of things as more of the Yick and Yuck of partisan bickering.
      We need to vote them all out and find a way to come to agreement.
      Term Limits, Lobby Reform and Publicly Financed Campaigns is our only hope of taking back the country. Take the money out of the equation and you lose the slimebag money whores.

      1. Drhu profile image59
        Drhuposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        BINGO!

        Meet the new boss.....same as the old boss.

  2. profile image0
    Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago

    It stems partly from his father having abandoned him, and his mother teaching him to be a Leftwing radical;   the rest from fear-based narcissism.
    He has such a twisted view of what the world should be like,  and such a resentment about his past,  that he's not emotionally nor mentally fit to be President.   He needs mental health counseling.   Seriously.

    1. Drhu profile image59
      Drhuposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Well he has quite a supporting cast.........

    2. Uninvited Writer profile image82
      Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Lol, where did you get your degree? lol

    3. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      AHAHAH oh wonderful amateur psychology.

      1. Drhu profile image59
        Drhuposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Actually some of that is from his own writings.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That he is too traumatized to lead a country? somehow I think not.

    4. scottcgruber profile image91
      scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The most conservative Democrat of the last fifty years is a "left-wing radical?"

      You low-information voters are truly hilarious.

  3. profile image0
    Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago

    It doesn't take an official psychology degree to evaluate someone's condition by their words and actions.  Like Drhu said,  his writings reveal some of that.
    His public speeches (which I've watched intensely ever since I heard him say he wouldn't want his daughters "punished with a baby" they didn't want,) plus the other information about him that's common knowledge via the News and his books and his own continuously-open mouth,  reveal 'most everything about him!

    scottgruber, you're in error if you think I'm a "low-information voter".  Your low-information assessment of me isn't funny;  it's sad.
    I've no idea if he's "the most conservative Democrat" or not.   I only know that he's NOT conservative about much of anything!   No conservative person would publicly promote killing unborn babies, nor promote perversion being made into law, nor promote socialism as opposed to capitalism in the way that Obama has done and still does.
    We WERE talking about Obama, ya know.  Why am I not surprised that liberal minds like yours appears to be end up trying to personally assess discussion participants instead of the actual subject of discussion?!
    What?   Are you under the impression that Mr. Obama needs defended or something?   He's always been pretty open about his terrible ideas and bad policies.   So I can't figure out why some people still think he needs or even deserves defense.
    Get your own facts straight before you mock me.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'm a conservative, and would never vote for Obama, but while I would not condone the killing of unborn babies, the few cells we name a "fetus" is another matter.

      I also promote and speak out for gay marriage; it is only viewed as unacceptable perversion by those wishing to apply their personal mythology onto others.

      Unfortunately, far right conservatives find a need somehow to control private actions of others, usually based on their religious views and a desire to force those views onto others.  It is a sad thing to observe, but all too true.

      1. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        +1

        Brenda that is the difference between a conservative and an extremist such as yourself. Reaching into the personal lives of other or labeling the love of others perversion is not the hallmark of any sane world view.

        1. profile image0
          Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Nor the hallmark of a worldview truly committed to liberty.  At least with libertarians, they are consistent in opposing the draft, drug laws, homophobic laws, the police state, etc.

          Conservatives just come across as greedy, because they are perfectly willing to spend billions on the military-industrial complex, and control the sexual organs of people they don't like; it's truly revolting and tyrannical.  Talk about "big government."

        2. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          roll

          If you want to see extremists, go to some Country that actually does exhibit hatred for gays.
          America does not, has not as a whole, and I have not and do not.
          I've never labeled the love of others as perversion.   I label some specific sexual acts as perversion.   Perhaps you should learn the difference between those two sets of terms.
          And the difference between conservatism and extremism.

          1. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You labelled gay marriage a perversion perhaps you misunderstand, marriage is not actually a sex act big_smile tongue

            1. profile image0
              Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I misunderstood nothing.

              I understand full well that liberals, when it's convenient for their point of discussion at any given time, say it's not about sex.   Then, when it's convenient,  they turn right around and say it IS about the right to have sex with whoever they want.

              Now that's messed-up.

              1. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Aww that must be so confusing.

                See choosing who you have sex with is also a human right but it is separate from marriage, marriage is not a sex act so is it a perversion or no?

                Besides perversion means anything sexual not for the purpose of procreation which makes upwards of 95% of the American population perverts for committing perverted acts, shall we ban those too? Perhaps you want cameras installed in every bedroom to ensure no one ever slips it where you are sure it shouldn't go tongue

                So pathetic

                1. profile image0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  What makes you think perversion means anything not for procreation?
                  See, there ya go again,  assuming things that aren't true.
                  Sex is for pleasure, closeness, intimacy, as well as for procreation.
                  Only in a man-and-woman relationship.
                  Stop assuming that Christians are so close-minded.
                  "Pathetic"?!
                  Stop resorting to personal insults.
                  It's no wonder people don't like to listen to liberals.  Who the hay wants to listen to personal insults?

                  1. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    That is the traditional definition, if that is not the one you are using then perversion is simply an arbitrary term dependent on nothing but your personal opinion and thus meaningless.

                    Only in a man and woman relationship why and how come you get to decide that rather than people who get intimacy, love and pleasure from such?

                    You may have noticed liberals won the last two national elections, obviously someone is listening.

                    Pathetic is simply what it is, the pathetic attempts of a dying creed of sad mini tyrants who want to impose their outdated and useless personal choices on others. A group of people thankfully rapidly going extinct.

      2. profile image0
        Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If you consider yourself conservative, then you consider yourself conservative.
        I do not consider you a conservative, based on what you just said.
        Nor does the formal definition of conservative.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Well, I agree with little the left promotes, either, except for personal freedom.  Their fiscal policies are a nightmare, designed to return the US to third world status, but for the most part I agree with their ideas on just leaving people alone to live as they please.

          That the far right does not share that concept is unfortunate, but most moderate conservatives at least come close. One day we can all respect each other's rights to be left alone to live as we please, but both far left and right are going to have to see some major changes before then.

          1. profile image0
            Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            We already had that,  don't you remember?
            Pre-Obama.
            Yep.
            There was abortion, yes.
            But not a President who had the audacity and wickedness to stand on a public platform and denounce the rights of the unborn.
            Not a President who had the audacity and wickedness to go into a Church and scold Christians about "gay rights".   What fools the people in that Church were, to not throw him out of their midst!   Man!  They must've been so cowed down by the man who wants to play God.

            We had moderation.   Could've been much better, yes, because Roe v. Wade should've been overturned long long ago!
            But we didn't have, like I said, a President who put the nail in infants' "coffins" by personally condoning abortion.   The Office of the Presidency carries much power.   It's unconscienable for any man to have abused that power like Obama has done.

            It makes me very angry when anyone talks about radicalism in reference to true conservatives!
            Because, talk about radicalism!-----------how much more radical is it than for women to be told they can KILL the child who's a result of their own sexual activity?!  THAT's radical!

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Abortion - it is radical because a few use their religion to define a fetus as a person.  It's not, and all the claims in the world will not make it so. 

              And maybe, just maybe, churches need to accept different people instead of condemning them.  Sure, hate the sin, love the sinner, but when you are the "sinner" it sure doesn't come across that way.  Tolerance, in the form of the Golden Rule, is something the far right desperately needs to accept and make a part of their life instead of ignoring.  Learn that demanding others conform to their religion means they to be willing to accept and live that other religion (or philosophy) or not make the demand in the first place.

              1. profile image0
                Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You do err in not knowing about churches, apparently.
                I've been in church all my life, and I can tell you straight up two things----it's not just "religion" that causes us to believe that a fetus is a life.  It's common biology, common knowledge of what human life is.
                And the second thing is-------churches don't normally condemn a homosexual's actions any more than they condemn any other sinner's actions.   But they're not gonna condone it either.   I did visit one church years ago where the Pastor was radical-minded in that regard.  He basically said he didn't even want a homosexual entering "his" church  (other churches welcome any sinner in the hopes that they'll receive the Word and get born-again).
                After I heard that one Pastor,  I didn't keep going to that church.  THAT man needed tolerance for people in a sinful condition.   Not to condone their ways, but to show them how the Love of God can change any person into a new creature in Christ.  Not to let unrepentant homosexuals preach or be official members,  not to let them advocate that it's okay to be homosexual, just like it's not okay to advocate for alcoholism etc.;  but to give them the hope that is available to them to save their souls and change their lives.   He missed the boat on that one.   And he's probably still preaching the same carp.  God convict his heart and turn him into a compassionate preacher.  I hope.  But in the meantime, I'm not about to go listen to him again.

                However, like I said,  all the other churches that I've ever been to do welcome any sinner to the congregation.   That's what church is supposed to be about.
                I know this.  Why?  Because I used to be a sinner in need of salvation.   I'm sure glad that I was welcomed to church.   And I'm equally glad that the Christians told me the truth---that I WAS a sinner in need of the Savior!    There's an old saying that you can love people all the way to hell.  Well, you can "tolerate" a sinner's actions all the way to hell too,  thereby doing yourself and them the greatest disservice there is--------telling them they have no sin and leading them straight to the fiery pit for eternity.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Of course you condemn it.  You pay lip service to tolerance, but when push comes to shove it is "perversion" and must not be allowed nor the perverts practicing it be allowed the rights you have.

                  You think because a fetus is human life it's a person?  Define, please, "human" life as opposed to animal.  A definition that is testable, either before or after birth, and not the presence of a "soul" that we can't detect.

                2. Wendi M profile image83
                  Wendi Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I've been reading all of the comments in this forum, and the only definitive conclusion I've come to (out of the entire discussion) is that "That is one very high horse you are sitting on Brenda!"  It's really too bad that the entire world couldn't be as perfect as you!

                  My only hope is to aspire to be as pure, and open minded, as you are some day....NOT!

      3. profile image60
        whoisitposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I'm a far right conservative and I'm not interested in controlling anything. Somehow I believe you are not as anti-Obama as you would like people to believe.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          He is pretty darned anti Obama I have had the discussion with him plenty of times, it's just he is a sane anti Obama American somewhat of a rarity, it's no surprise you can't fathom it.

          1. profile image60
            whoisitposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Let me think.....Bullshit

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              See? Can't fathom it at all tongue

        2. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          And how many times have you told me that something or other is no business of mine?
          And that's not trying to control!

          1. profile image60
            whoisitposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Not at all, it is you trying to control things that are none of your business.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              See, can't fathom it at all!

              (sorry Josak, it seemed such a satisfactory response that I could see no reason to change it)

    2. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No you are wildly unqualified to comment on the mental or psychological state of anyone, has he faced adversity? Sure, the best leaders come from such adversity rather than the usual silver spoon born to rule types the GOP gives us, Nelson Mandela for example faced twenty years of incarceration, brutal abuse and slowly going blind before he became president.
      People deal with adversity/difficulty differently and you (and anyone except a qualified psychologist/psychiatrist who has actually treated him) have no ability to deduce his mental state whatever. The unprofessional attempts to do are just laughable and fully invite the ridicule they received.

      1. profile image60
        whoisitposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You're comparing Obama to Nelson Mandela? What adversity has Obama faced?

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The adversity earlier mentioned by Brenda when she determined that it had left him too psychologically scarred to lead tongue

    3. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Wow Brenda, you wrote:


      But then wrote:



      Do you not see that in your first comment you are doing exactly what you complain about in your second comment? If you think it's not okay to criticise someone purely on a personal level, instead of addressing their arguments, I agree. But at least practice what you preach (so to speak).

      Besides we all have backgrounds. We all have history. A few may be lucky enough to have had a trouble-free life. Others not so much. What's important is what someone chooses to be now. It's ridiculous to suggest someone who has had setbacks, or disappointments, or felt let down by a parent, or suffered discrimination etc. is not fit to hold the office of POTUS. That's real life. It's part of what makes someone a human being. Having personal challenges to overcome is no reason to consider someone unfit for office. Anyway what you perceive as weaknesses, I see as strength. Someone who is able to overcome personal challenges to achieve the highest office in the land is exactly the type of person who should be President in my opinion. Some good leaders have started from humble and even troubled beginnings.

      Next time you complain about someone attacking you personally instead of your argument, the words you are looking for are: argumentum ad hominem. That means criticising the person, not their argument. I agree with you, doing this is a poor substitute for an argument, and is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. That's true whether the person being personally criticised is you, me or the President of the United States.

  4. profile image0
    Sooner28posted 4 years ago

    It boggles my mind that the right and the left cannot unite to combat future and current threats to liberty.

    Is it just to imprison people for simply smoking/selling marijuana?  This may not seem like a significant issue, but countless lives have been ruined because of puritanical nonsense.  This is an enormous violation of liberty.

    Is it just to discriminate against homosexual Americans and turn America into a theocracy like Iran, where homosexuality is illegal?  The activities of two consenting adults who are harming no one else are outside the scope of government interference.

    Is it just to pass laws that give the president (not Obama specifically, but any president) the power to order the killing of anyone he/she deems an "enemy combatant?"  Monarchial assassination powers are despotic.

    Is it just to rob people of their money to finance imperial wars?  Wars for oil, territory, political influence.  We have no right to control the world. 

    Is it just to violate the very essence of our humanity by torturing?  This is a degradation of humanity that should cause any moral human being to revolt.

    Is it just the wealthy are treated by a different standard in our judicial system than the poor?  One should not be able to skirt just laws (if there is such a thing) simply with enough money.

    I think all of these issues can be bipartisnally condemned.

    They don't require raising taxes or creating any new government programs.  In fact, it would reduce government spending (less on military and resources to engage in a "war on drugs), and the liberty of all Americans would be increased.

    1. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Give that man a cigar!

 
working