jump to last post 1-32 of 32 discussions (226 posts)

President Obama played golf Eighty one times in 2012.......

  1. ahorseback profile image51
    ahorsebackposted 2 years ago

    Just saying , lets see , 52 weekends  , hmmmm.?.  This is the president of the free world , with all its problems , catastrophes , war , terrorism ,  border problems ,  a failing congress .  Russia  stepping heavily across eastern Europe again ,  and then his own issues , global warming , the open borders , a senate that  thinks that each of them are kings, the war against Christianity ,...... A wife  like ours would say NO once in a while , I mean , wouldn't she . Wonder how many basketball hook ups he did ?

    1. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      But who did he play golf with?

      1. Paul Wingert profile image79
        Paul Wingertposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        War against Christianity? Really? Now they're the victims? LMAO! They've been declaring war on the world for the last 2000 years.

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I don't understand.

    2. rhamson profile image78
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      The job is a 24/7/365 commitment. I wonder how many late nights, red eye flights, meetings etc....

    3. WillStarr profile image84
      WillStarrposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      When the going gets tough, Obama goes fundraising...every time. That way, he'll be adored, because those who pay $30,000 a plate all love him.

      (Of course, these very wealthy donors are not to be confused with the 1% all liberals hate!)

    4. psycheskinner profile image81
      psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I hate to ruin a good rant with facts but...

      18.  Not 81. http://obamagolfcounter.com/

      1. Quilligrapher profile image90
        Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Actually, I count 19 but it doesn’t really matter.

        In fact, his average of 1-1/2 rounds per month in 2012 is less than his average of <3 rounds per month as President. .

        However, these numbers pale when compared to Woodrow Wilson who is said to have played 1,200 rounds of golf during his years in the oval office. Even Dwight Eisenhower managed 800 rounds during his eight years. {1}
        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
        {1} http://www.golfblogger.com/index.php/go … l_golfers/

        1. GA Anderson profile image86
          GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Really Quill? You resorted to the Wilson - Eisenhower defense?

          I too found that data in my perusals, but the OP's point was already so slanted that I thought anything less than a "Bush and his Crawford ranch visits" would be wasted breath.
          ps. to his credit - I think Bush was right when he made the decision to curtail his golf outings after the 2003 embassy bombing

          Geez,, rHamson made the most salient point with his... "24/7/365," but I would make another to the pro-business minded posters...

          Have you ever heard of businessmen speaking of how many more times the most important deals are made on the golf course rather  than in the boardroom?

          Of course I do have to agree that it does look bad to us every-day folks. (I refuse to use the new media buzzword - "Optics")

          GA

          1. Quilligrapher profile image90
            Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Hey there, GA.

            Have you ever heard that this widely circulated folklore is base on anecdotes rather than hard facts? However, it has been known to be very successfully when used on bosses and wives. smile
            http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

    5. Credence2 profile image88
      Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      It is sort of dumb to use the President's golf games as a way to gauge his performance as president. Since you do not shadow him daily, you truly are not in a position to know, are you?

      1. bBerean profile image60
        bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Agreed.  Judge him on his performance, not method.  Of course, if people would have done that realistically back in 2012, we wouldn't be suffering through his second term.

        1. rhamson profile image78
          rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          And if he had been "found out" and not re-elected how many more wars would we be fighting now?

          1. 84
            Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Would Iraq have the same Issues with terrorists?  Would we have had Benghazi, Libya, or Egypt?  We can talk about hypotheticals on both sides of that "what if."

            1. rhamson profile image78
              rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I see your "what if" logic but how many little messes has John McCain been vocal about committing troops too? Romney has spoken up also about sending boots on the ground to regions that are better left to figuring out their own problems. ISIL is going to feel the pain of the wagging of the finger with the executions but hopefully it will be when they sit down to dinner with their terrorist coven and have a drone explode in their laps for desert. This is a lot better and safer done from a control booth in Florida rather than an advanced fire base in Syria.

              1. 84
                Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                More hypotheticals?  As has been pointed out by many liberals, Obama won.  Who cares what somebody would have done?  Let's talk about what those who are in power have actually done or failed to do.

                If, however, we're going to play this "what if game" as a way of saying that the POTUS is weak but the other guy was worse, then let's at least look at both sides of the hypotheticals.  Either way, it doesn't say much for Obama.

                1. rhamson profile image78
                  rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I was just responding to your hypotheticals. By the way I don't care what you are. You can be a Zerple from Euthoria as far as I care about your semantics.

                  1. 84
                    Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Semantics?  Too funny.

                    The bottom line is that the POTUS is lazy and ineffectual.   He whines about those evil republicans but doesn't have the leadership to actually meet with politicians and actually discuss a compromise.  He runs to the podium instead, and he tries to convince the public he's right, hoping for public pressure on Congress.  We have a leadership vacuum.  Then, when this doesn't work, he says that NEVER before has the opposition been so unwilling to work with the POTUS.  Excuses! 

                    People defend him with statements like, "He's better than Romney would have been."  Great, what a testimonial.

        2. Credence2 profile image88
          Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Don't know B, I think that things would more likely than not have been more difficult under Romney. IMHO......

        3. Kathleen Cochran profile image87
          Kathleen Cochranposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          There are those of us who are not suffering.  I guess because we are the majority and we elected him.  My only concern with the prospect of Hillary Clinton as the next president is the prospect of eight more years of dealing with republicans as the losers.  Jeeze.  Did the concept of supporting whoever is in the White House die completely in America?  I'd be happy with at least "loyal opposition" at this point.  Where did all this hatred of the other party come from?

      2. 84
        Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        It measures how often he isn't doing his job though.

    6. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
      Dr Billy Kiddposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Let's not forget that the U.S. Congress is scheduled to work only 12 days from August 1 through October 31.

    7. Fred Arnold profile image60
      Fred Arnoldposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Bush took the most vacations out of any president. This is a dumb reason to critisize someone over. All you did was spout this and that with no concrete evidence or conjecture of your own. Stop taking in stupid propaganda from what you see online and get educated.

    8. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Do you really believe that Obama is the president of the free world!
      Do you think that the free world extends no further than your own borders?
      Do you really think you are so free?

  2. ahorseback profile image51
    ahorsebackposted 2 years ago

    Why can't we as two parties simply fire the congressional  incumbents collectively OUT  of office  ?  It would be so easy if  Americans haven't become so ideologically divided  and I'm not even sure that we aren't divided simply out of the ability to do so ? Are we to politically immature as a culture to agree  ?

    1. rhamson profile image78
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Because their best interest is what they are looking out for. The two party system is detrimental to open and honest debate because the polarization leaves little room for compromise. Term limits, publicly financed campaigns and lobby reform are the best way of having our interests carried out.

  3. ahorseback profile image51
    ahorsebackposted 2 years ago

    Well there Freddy , Nothing excuses the fact that this IS the most uncoordinated white house administration --ever !  Given all  of our domestic  and foreign problems in the world today !

  4. ahorseback profile image51
    ahorsebackposted 2 years ago

    Yes John I do , it just happens that America is still a nation of it's people , unlike yours .  It's just that the socio- political maturity of it's people is in the pits !  The percentages of caring  registered voters in America right now is somewhere around one half or less , I believe it will take a major catastrophe to get our people back into  the election  to election  workings  of it's own government . AND ,That's perhaps why so much of your forum attention is devoted to Americans and criticizing our system  !  Because you have rightfully lost hope in yours .

    1. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      In what way is America still a nation of it's people and the UK isn't?

      It is true that as our society moves further toward American totalitarianism I start to lose hope, but I haven't lost it completely, our illiterate voters are beginning to get the message and next year should see a sea change in our situation.

      BTW, the reason why I devote so much attention to these forums is not so that I can criticise your system but so that I can counter your oppression of so many.

  5. Onusonus profile image88
    Onusonusposted 2 years ago

    http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/1a/6d/96/1a6d96438456f4cfb0e6ced9e278df0e.jpg

  6. ahorseback profile image51
    ahorsebackposted 2 years ago

    Now there's the picture of a real president ! Enough said !

    1. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I thought he only played golf 8 times because he was no good at it and preferred horse riding instead.

      You still haven't explained to me why the free world stops at the US borders.

      1. Onusonus profile image88
        Onusonusposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I wouldn't bother. Explaining freedom to a socialist is like playing chess with a pigeon. The socialist would just knock over the pieces, take a dump on the board, and strut around acting like it won.

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          In other words you realise how illusionary your freedom is but don't want to admit it so you go into abusive mode!

          Why should a socialist not understand what freedom is? It seems to me that the unfree are the capitalist lackeys who must do as they are ordered to by their masters.

          1. Onusonus profile image88
            Onusonusposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Interesting, but nobody forces anybody to buy anything in a capitalist system, only when socialists creep in and attempt to take away our hard earned money.
            That's called stealing. You wouldn't understand...

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Capitalism is predicated on theft and always has been. But then you wouldn't understand that not being free.

              This was supposed to be a discussion about the US being the beginning and end of the free world. Why have you diverted it to a discussion of socialism?

              1. Onusonus profile image88
                Onusonusposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Because Socialism is steadily expanding into our economic system, thus ending freedom in America. What you don't seem to realize is though you think socialism is some alternative way of spreading equality, it always ends in murder and poverty for all. It is always implemented by force, and thus your results will always end in Stalin's Russia, or Mao's China, Castro's Cuba, Killing fields in Cambodia, North Korea Etc. unless those dictators are halted by the precepts of freedom and democracy. And no economic system has ever proved to perpetuate individual liberty more effectively than an open and free market

                It's a nice idea though, to think you can force people to be equally poor, but I think Ideas should be weighed by their results rather than their intentions.

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  What you think of as socialism is any thing but. It is capitalism protecting itself from a mob.

                  With one exception none of those countries that you list are even remotely socialist.
                  What about the force used to implement capitalism, which your country is guilty of?
                  And what has this got to do with the USA being the only free country in the world?

                  I would be interested to see an open and free market in operation, it happens in neither of our countries.

                  1. Onusonus profile image88
                    Onusonusposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    John you are set in your ideology. You advocate something that history has proven never works, and I advocate a system that has been historically proven to always work. The fact is were America to fall into socialism, no other capitalistic country would be able to muster the military might to fend off the tennants of socialists and communists whose goal it is to force the rest of the world into their line of slavery.
                    That is how the fall of the US will be the end of the free world. The formation of the United States is a small moment of freedom and democracy in a global history repleate with Kings, Czars, Tyrants, Dictators, rulers, and slaves.
                    And that is what you are advocating we return to.

                2. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Anyway this doesn't move one inch towards showing me how you are free in the USA and I am not free in the UK.

  7. ahorseback profile image51
    ahorsebackposted 2 years ago

    John , "why  we think a free world stops at the US border ?" ........Start with this idea to chew on , Because the free world began with the US .  If  you read your history you  will remember  that , that very pursuit of a free world began  as an exodus from  even your very own  country's borders .! And ,  since then the cries from Europe in particular have involved the US in more wars than need be and  included  in these cries are those  for the US to once again go to war , the war on terrorism -that  which no  other superpower  seems to concern themselves with spending it's treasures and blood ,. That is,  as long as the US  continues to be the "big brother" to the rest of the "free "  world . Hey  John , enjoy your freedom !

    1. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      The free world might have begun with the US but then the US became unfree and remains so. Whilst the rest of the world has moved on the US is still stuck in the mindset that it had when founded. Look at the fuss when anybody suggests changing your constitution.
      Remember just how long it took the "free" USA to abolish slavery and racial segregation.

      The cries to go to war are totally internal, aimed at replacing free regimes with US controlled regimes.
      Your war on terrorism makes us all unsafe and open to threats of terrorism. You conveniently forget that for a hundred years or more, your fellow country men and politicians were sponsoring terrorism in the UK, amongst other places. You have made a major industry out of that ultimate oppressor of freedom and that is war.

  8. 60
    Danny Koppposted 2 years ago

    I must say (keeping my personal political standpoint out of it) that although you have a good point in saying we have a lot of problems to fix as a country, how many times Barrack Obama plays golf is irrelevant.

    First off, can we admit that the president has very little influence on what actually happens in government? And that he is more of a talking face to blame our problems on rather than a raw decision maker? It's undeniable he's not Lincoln, he's not great, or even decent for that matter, but he's not the only one responsible. Spend anger on the suit-wearing, smiling gangsters that work under him. The ones who do the dirty work, and manipulate our country for their own benefit while legitimate problems are neglected.

    I agree that the President is near worthless. I believe he's probably a better golfer than he is a leader of over 300 million people. I also think he's a decoy to the real enemy. Let's stop falling for it.

    1. GA Anderson profile image86
      GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      No! Absolutely we can not say that. A leader is not a mechanic. A leader is not a coder. A leader is not the smartest guy in the field.

      A leader is someone that has the vision and courage to set the course - them leave it to the helmsman to follow it. That is the job of our President.

      Our president has extraordinary power to set the course of the nation. Congress either follows, adds corrections, or refutes our leader's course.

      Pick two great, (and opposite), examples; FDR and Reagan. Both set our nations course. Both had a vision for our nation that resonated with the people. And in both cases our legislators followed or confronted their direction. In either case  - they lead. They set the direction. That is what a leader does. That is what our presidents do.

      So once again, a resounding NO! Your statement is completely wrong. A president has great influence. It only appears that he doesn't when he can't muster the will of the nation to rally to his vision.

      Your comment might apply to a restaurant or convenience store manager, but not to the leader of our nation.

      Pres. Obama has catchest a lot of flak for his decisions, (perhaps because he may not be tuned in to "everyday Americans"), but regardless of the reasons or results, he still sets the course for America's actions.

      Geesh, equating the presidency to figure-head status seems very cynical to me.

      GA

  9. Hepkess profile image60
    Hepkessposted 2 years ago
  10. Hepkess profile image60
    Hepkessposted 2 years ago
  11. Hepkess profile image60
    Hepkessposted 2 years ago
    1. GA Anderson profile image86
      GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Three links in a row. Don;t you think your perspective would be a little more interesting if you offered them with a comment or two of your own?

      I don't know what your perspective is because I don't follow bare links. Maybe I an not alone in this feeling.

      GA

  12. ahorseback profile image51
    ahorsebackposted 2 years ago

    As John Holden should know ,  the other "super -powers " and I use that term loosely , have failed miserably , his own nation , England , Russia and  China , in modern times  and   France , Portugal , Spain , in past times all realized too late that socialistic and communistic ideals  do nothing but suck up a prosperous nations vital recourses  and treasures  . And,   once a nation begins to consume itself , like  a wolf eating it's  own  young ,  it can no longer  call itself anything but  a nation subservient to it's own taxation and  costs of  it's social overly abundant  welfare system , thereby  reducing itself to a poorer place ,. once  all  prosperous Industry leaves it's borders ,  the rich people begin to  locate their resources in the more successful  economies .  China , for instance once a  poor communistic nation is embracing it's  fast growing economy based on  free industry , ---with no regulations !    on the other hand , America , Its own   once prosperous manufacturing corporations  are leaving like flies ., it's rich people are looking to the Bahamas' for higher  interest rates and lower taxes .    Let's face it John , you envy America for the very freedoms that you once  had !  Yours is a nation of Kings and  Queens who reign over it's own  people with a  golden collection plate professing  social prosperity and taxing you to no end ! We, on the other hand , still determine and participate in  how our taxes are raised  and by voting , where they go !, Our problem right now is maintaining our world superiority in economic power  , white balancing the popularity of  a subculture that wishes for more social spending  programs !   President Obama is but a  social worker on steroids and  in the ways that he pushes our economy around to suit his idealistic image of  a  socially "shared wealth" , he is destroying  our country's always independent strengths. brought on by entrepreneurial  growth wisdom , through lower taxed industry and  economic freedoms  all  based on less government !  He is intentionally  diverting mega - tax dollars towards a  more "shared " social programing  , mostly for liberal vote buying purposes  .  However distorted , his  picture of  a new and  prosperous America is in  moving away from  the strengths of industry  and  the once great American ingenuity with  the  ethics of  hard work and towards more  state welfare and  generally more people eating from the public pig troth !  What was once a thriving economy with an economically lead political freedom is fast becoming another Spain .  Yes John freedom  is America ,  right now at least , but it will end with it's economic decline . So when the next Adolf Hitler comes along  and begins dropping it's buzz bombing  terror on England  why don't you  call China and see if they'll help  you out !  Maybe they can do a "Lend - Lease "  and save your ass ,  America will be too poor to do that .

    1. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      And it is capitalism, not socialism that is leading the decline of our once great countries.

      BTW the Queen has no legislative powers and does not raise taxes. Just another indication of your lack of knowledge of ow other countries work.

  13. ahorseback profile image51
    ahorsebackposted 2 years ago

    You asked where  the  worlds freedom goes  outside of Americas borders , I explained .  I know how England's government works John ,  that doesn't  however  change the fact your government is further down the road towards socialism  than ours however ,A little   political envy there John?

    1. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      If you think our government is even remotely socialist then you really are out of touch!
      Does cutting pay for the lower paid whilst cutting taxes for the wealthy really fit into your vision of socialism?
      Does privatising public utilities fit your vision of socialism?
      Does privatising welfare fit your vision of socialism?

      No, I don't envy your right wing government any more than I welcome ours.
      You still haven't explained how you are freer than us though.

  14. John Holden profile image61
    John Holdenposted 2 years ago

    Well there we go! The chance for a useful and informative discussion on what freedom represents to different people.
    Instead an uninformed tirade against socialism!

  15. ahorseback profile image51
    ahorsebackposted 2 years ago

    The privatization  of corporations and pay cuts to your people were BECAUSE of  being too near  a socialist level ,and not being able to budget that exorbitant cost , remember how angry some of  your public was ?  Here's the kicker -  less government + less cost =  steering away from socialism . 1 + 1 = 2.......

    1. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      So why have the prices of utilities gone through the roof since privatisation? Why do we now have the most expensive railways in Europe (and possibly the world) since privatisation?
      Why have wages dropped since the corporations have risen in power?
      Why do we have more people now living in poverty?
      Why is the major growth in food banks one of the few growth areas?

      It was nothing to do with anything being too near a socialist level but because the one percent weren''t able to profit so much.

  16. ahorseback profile image51
    ahorsebackposted 2 years ago

    ----Equals more freedom !

    1. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      What equals more freedom? And for who?

    2. Onusonus profile image88
      Onusonusposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      He doesn't get it. The math is too difficult.

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        What is to get? "equals more freedom" is without any meaning

  17. ahorseback profile image51
    ahorsebackposted 2 years ago

    More freedom for you and I and from what ? An economically oppressive governing tyranny . That very tyranny being those who feel that they are somehow deserving of your  resources  free to them for the taking . Government by definition is a mushrooming entity , thereby professing taking from your pocket for the betterment of all others .  The whole problem with that idealism is that  eventually  we become a learned society of takers and not givers .   America is fast approaching the proven socialist formula  of   40 % of it's populace living on government  incomes and therefore just how many people are economically attached at the hip to a tax based  feeding troth !  Government monies for all !  Except -- that style of society cannot be  self supporting  with a vibrant and varied  economy ..  If I decide where my money goes , I have more freedom . If my government decides - I have less freedom .

    1. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      There is nothing socialist about 40% living off the government!  That is capitalism, the state (ie the people) sponsoring private profit.
      The socialist creed is that if you don't work, you don't eat. How does that fit with a large percentage of the population left on the scrap heap?
      That very tyranny of those who feel they are somehow deserving of your resources. Like CEOs you mean? If the minimum wage in the UK had risen at the same rate as that of CEOs since 1990, the minimum wage in the UK would be nearly £20 an hour.Instead in real terms it has fallen.

      Think for yourself man, don't just parrot the lines that you have been fed.

    2. rhamson profile image78
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      The funny thing is that you somehow believe you have some sort of freedom by working hard and making the right decisions in this democratic/republic. For years the corporate and political elite have been setting up a system of favor whereby you have to be connected to participate. How could so many jobs be sent overseas without a care as to who it was affecting? The corporate elite bought favor to set up trade agreements that got them labor for pennies on the dollar The savings they garnered were in part passed onto the consumer who in their unknowing greed bought the products to support the scam. Unknowing in that they allowed their elected officials to be bought and change laws to facilitate these corporate elite. And unknowing in that they supported the demise of their own means of making a living. Many have supported themselves by refinancing their homes and borrowing on credit cards to fill the void while the economy has a chance to recover and make them prosperous again. This they did unknowingly while their standard of living was undermined by the corporate greed and their own to support a lifestyle that was devalued despite their own efforts. The jobs are gone and many either can't be retrained due to age, economic situations or opportunities so what is to become of these people. Go away and die? Buck up and pick berries or lettuce? The corporate elites latest ploy is to vacate the country with their spoils by inversion with other corporations overseas. That way they keep their booty and continue to enjoy all the privileges of living here in the US. What a great situation for them if you can get it. Well they bought it.

      Everyone thinks the President can magically change all the woes that have been created by many before him and some while he is in charge of the country. But the truth of the matter is that WE THE PEOPLE have been asleep at the wheel for many years and our lack of participation in making the right choices have been forfeited to a greedy bunch of slime bags who feed us the crap we want while scraping the cream from the surface for themselves. They do this while we believe their lies and bull$&*t and sell us false hopes to line their own pockets. It is not the politicians fault. They are doing exactly what we pay them to do because we encourage them by re electing them.

  18. ahorseback profile image51
    ahorsebackposted 2 years ago

    The single biggest problem in America  at this time is the  high percentage of apathy of the voting public. Our congress needs to be symbolically fired ,  perhaps a grass roots movement to oust all  or at least most incumbent senate and congressmen[women ] and definitely a change in the white-house .  I believe this November will show significant changes in the power structure at the top . I could be wrong but I believe those who elected  "hope and change " have learned a valuable lesson ,  Obama was elected  primarily by eighteen to twenty eight year olds who seldom become so involved in elections , it was a brilliant move by his people . However ill conceived in reality ! An idealistic  social worker cannot successfully lead a countries economy , cannot  conceive of real changes  in such a large economic downturn AND. can not  be a world  class leader . .

    1. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      But a retired actor can!

      1. 84
        Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        John, what a divisive statement!

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          And "an idealistic social worker" isn't!

          1. gmwilliams profile image85
            gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Obama is just not suited to be president pure and simple.  America has gotten worse since he became "president."  He became president with the purpose of pushing his socialist agenda with the ultimate purpose of destroying/dismantling American institutions and values.   He intends for America to lose its status in the world.  With a "president" like him, America does not need enemies.

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Tell me just one element of Obama's "socialist agenda" that he has actually introduced!

              1. Onusonus profile image88
                Onusonusposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                The American people do not except socialism as we still have a constitution of the people, by the people and for the people. Therefore we are still a nation of laws and not socialist dictators as you would have it.

                Obama is a socialist because he was raised as one from his infancy. His mentor was family friend Frank Marshall Davis, a member of the Communist Party USA. But don't let the "USA" fool you. Once the old Soviet archives were opened up, there was proof that the CPUSA was entirely under the control and direction of the Soviet Union until the latter's collapse.

                Stanley Anne Dunham, Obama's mother, dabbled in socialist politics throughout her life.

                Obama does relate in his books that he attended socialist conferences and read Marxist literature.

                Obama believes in "spreading the wealth around" not just domestically but internationally -- soaking U.S. taxpayers for hundreds of billions of dollars sent overseas.

                Obama became a "community organizer" in Chicago, working with ACORN, the Democratic Socialists of America and other avowedly socialist groups, such as the New Party, whose endorsement he sought and won in 1996.

                Obama befriended hard-core, radical communists Bill Ayers and Carl Davidson, both members of the socialist Students for a Democratic Society. Ayers went on from SDS to lead the revolutionary communist Weather Underground faction responsible for a wave of terror including bombings of the Capitol, deadly bank robberies and the bombing of a police station in San Francisco that killed one officer.

                While in Chicago, Obama and his family attended Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ for two decades. Wright was not only anti-American, anti-Semitic and racist, he was also a socialist, a practitioner of "Liberation Theology," who said: "We must ask the question, 'Why are there 40 million poor people in America?' And when you ... ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question you begin to question the capitalistic economy."

                Which group boasts the most White House visits since Obama moved in? The Service Employees International Union, a new name for ACORN, which, according to former official Stephen Lerner, seeks to "destabilize" America's financial system through occupy-style attacks on banks and Wall Street.

                Obama taught a law-school class on socialist activist Saul Alinsky, not the U.S. Constitution as he claims.

                Obama endorsed Bernie Sanders, the only avowed socialist in the U.S. Congress.

                The Communist Party endorsed Obama in his 2008 primary battle with Hillary Clinton.

                Obama believes "our individual salvation depends on collective salvation."

                As president, Obama appointed an unprecedented 45 "czars" including many socialists -- Van Jones, Anita Dunn, John Holdren, Cass Sunstein, Ron Bloom and Elizabeth Warren.

                Obama believes every person has a "right" to health care. The Communist Party and the Socialist Party agree. In fact, it's part of their platforms.

                Obama believes labor unions should be allowed to organize workers without approval being subject to secret ballots. The Communist Party and the Socialist Party agree. In fact, it's part of their platforms.

                Obama believes there is an inherent "right" to housing. The Communist Party and the Socialist Party agree. In fact, it's part of their platforms.

                Obama has promoted an open-borders agenda. The Communist Party and Socialist Party agree. In fact, it's in their platforms.

                Obama has steadfastly promoted a "steeply graduated" income tax. The Communist Party and the Socialist Party agree. In fact, it's in their platforms.

                1. Fred Arnold profile image60
                  Fred Arnoldposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  That's all fine and taken with a grain of salt for no sources. I would welcome them so I can see where your information is coming from.  But the man has two more years in office. So I think we are safe from his radical "communist" agenda. By the way, there needs to be emphasis between communism and socialism here, since they are different and not interchangeable.

                2. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  All those you mention apart from Van Jones are members of the Democrat party which is in no way socialist.
                  Many people apart from socialists agree that everybody has a right to health care.

                  Many apart from socialists agree that labour unions should be allowed to organise without conditions that nobody else is supposed to work under..

                  Many apart from socialists recognise an inherent right to housing.

                  Many apart from socialists advocate an open border policy, it's very useful for pulling wages down thus benefiting capitalists.

                  Many apart from socialists promote a graduated income tax.

                  Now would you like to tell me of any socialist policies Obama has actually successfully implemented.

                  1. Onusonus profile image88
                    Onusonusposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    All socialist policies, all supported by socialists and Communists. Simply because those politicians do not walk around with a hammer and sickle tattooed on their foreheads does not disqualify them from their own ideology.

            2. Fred Arnold profile image60
              Fred Arnoldposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              There are positive and negative numbers when it comes to jobs, economy, and foreign policy under Obama. It has become the staple of the American to brand the President as the "worst" president due to the negatives with little regard for the positives; when, in all honesty, Obama is just a mediocre President like every President we have had since Clinton.

              And he intends for us to lose our status? You make a lot of assumptions about people who you don't know. You him an an enemy when there needs to be actual discussion not biased assertions that stone wall any attempt at consensus.

            3. rhamson profile image78
              rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              ....He became president with the purpose of pushing his socialist agenda with the ultimate purpose of destroying/dismantling American institutions and values....

              This is a crock of it. How has he even made a move to dismantle Wall Street? He has been in bed with them for years. They bankrolled his campaigns and he paid them off. Get your facts straight! Call him out for what he has done. You don't have to make s#!t up.


              ....He intends for America to lose its status in the world....

              To what ends? Why would he do that? He wants to continue living here and build his library and the legacy that a good politician gets. He will be the most thrifty warrior President we have ever had as he has vacated Iraq of ground troops and we are soon to leave Afghanistan which will help the purse. He will do this while launching drone strikes that terrifies the terrorists ten times more than any whack-a-mole generals plan that has killed more than it gains in respect from the enemy.

  19. ahorseback profile image51
    ahorsebackposted 2 years ago

    Bottom line John  , Reagan did lead and he  lead well . ,actor or not , a social worker could theoretically lead as well , BUT  he isn't leading well enough , not  by any means ! Why , because he is neither charismatic enough  , he doesn't have the "break away " leadership qualities  necessary for pulling together a  political consensus .!  AND, more than anything , those people around him are not world class leaders , lets face it a presidential leader , in the US anyway, is a  a president who  surrounds himself with  like minds ! Obama's  surrounded himself  by socially conscious idealists , professors , career intellectuals  , otherwise overeducated  college students ,   by career federal employees far too insulated from the real world .to  even realize the true jungle  like nature of "real  world" politics .,  Regan new how to speak to the voting people in America , and used that effectively to control the other half of the true power in America ......Congress !

    That's the difference John - Obama is virtually spinning his wheels  spending too much political capital  trying to prove that he isn't way out of his league and  Regan created the very league !

    1. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Therefore it has absolutely nothing to do with him being a social worker and to suggest that it is is divisive..

    2. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000=Reagan led this country to TRIUMP and RESPECT while Obumbler is leading this country to .....RUIN!

  20. ahorseback profile image51
    ahorsebackposted 2 years ago

    Please excuse the mispelling and punctuation  ! Before you engage the spelling police  ..

    1. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry, on the strength of this post I just had to go back and look smile

  21. MikeSyrSutton profile image41
    MikeSyrSuttonposted 2 years ago

    Pure and simple! He may become our biggest mistake!

  22. ahorseback profile image51
    ahorsebackposted 2 years ago

    Here's a real life experience in socialism John !  Obama  has mandated for every American that they must purchase government mandated insurance coverage , or pay a federal  fine  !  Yet , here in the state of Vermont where I live ,  the two underwriters of insurance coverage have requested to the state an increase of 10-- 12 %  for the year ending 2014 only !   Had he also  regulated the cost of health care  increases , he may have gained more favor ,he didn't though !   Blue Cross / Blue Sheild insurance companies have requested such  increases EVERY year John .     They have also gained a reputation for denying coverage for certain  operations and sickness',   This isn't Englands  socialist  health care system where nobody pays a dime for all care / at government  expence  , Its a mandated purchase of coverage  by profit based companies . So much for the free  choice purchase of health care coverage !   = Socialism !

    1. Fred Arnold profile image60
      Fred Arnoldposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      That's not socialism... You need to read what socialism is....

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Oh he doesn't need to read about socialism, he knows it all, got it from his capitalist mates!

    2. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      But that isn't socialism, that's pure capitalism! Notice you mention two underwriters, what are they doing there if you truly have socialised medicine? You also mention that Obama didn't regulate the cost of healthcare,  why didn't he? Because he didn't want to upset his capitalist mates!

      And you fail to understand the British system as well. Rather than nobody paying a dime, we all pay, the difference is that we don't pay a profit based company which is were your argument that you have socialised medicine falls down

    3. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Oh I missed this one first time round!
      You are saying that if he had made health care nearer to the socialist model he would have gained more favour!

      1. 84
        Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        He did make it closer to socialism than capitalism.

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          In what respect? You still have to pay private insurance companies.

        2. Fred Arnold profile image60
          Fred Arnoldposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Blind statement, no further explanation.

          1. 84
            Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Blind response to reality?

            1. Fred Arnold profile image60
              Fred Arnoldposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              How did he make it closer to socialism? The ACA? That's it?

              1. 84
                Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Isn't that enough?

  23. ahorseback profile image51
    ahorsebackposted 2 years ago

    In order to understand the complexities of  capitalism - socialism  and in light of the elitist  idealistic slant to this conversation , I will explain that  I have to break a subject down to its simplest form to understand it . So -

    Socialism - our hands in each others  pocket to "share "our wealth .
    Capitalism - I work and earn equally beside you and we take our paychecks home to spend as we chose and can afford .
    Communism -still being determined .

    1. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      So let's get this straight. What you are saying is that with socialism a few get very rich at the expense of the many while with capitalism everybody has enough to live off, there is no poverty and no want.

      Yeah right.

      1. gmwilliams profile image85
        gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        YAWN, zzzzzzzz.

      2. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        How do you get rich by splitting one living wage among several families?  (Socialism)

        How can there be no poverty when some won't work and produce? (Capitalism)

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          No, that's capitalism. Socialism gives everybody a living wage.



          No, when some can't work and produce which is capitalism. I know you love to believe that everybody who is not working is doing so by choice, but it just isn't so.

          1. gmwilliams profile image85
            gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            ZZZZZZZZZZ, oh please!
            http://s2.hubimg.com/u/11741959.jpg

            1. Fred Arnold profile image60
              Fred Arnoldposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              End the disussion, GM said "oh please" which always completely negates any other persons opinion!

          2. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            "Gives" being the operative word - when a person is paid more than the value of his work it becomes "gives" and has to come from someone else.  Socialism, in other words.

            Just as you love to believe that everyone would produce at high levels if only "The Man" would let them.  Neither is true.

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Don't be so pedantic, Gives is a shorter form of "allows every man to" Mind you I'm glad you see the dangers of paying more than a person is worth-all those over paid CEO's!



              When have I ever suggested that everyone would produce at high levels?
              Failure to pay a living wage and the government, ie you, has to step in and top up that wage. Capitalism in other words.

        2. Fred Arnold profile image60
          Fred Arnoldposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          The top 1% could give a million dollars to every person in this country. True socialism is complete division of wealth. That means every ounce of our countries wealth is split between every person. The problem with that is people feel that they are entitled to more for a job that requires more knowledge. This is, in fact, a handicap to society. People see one dimensional and don't pursue goals for the act of bettering the social circle. Socialism only works if people negate what makes them human. You know: greed, prejudice, unwilling to cooperate with each other. Etc.

          With that in mind, we have to enable a system like capitalism because human nature negates the ability for anything else to work efficiently. The "social" programs introduced into our government and economy are only socialist by, at best, 5 degrees.

          1. 84
            Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Care to provide proof that the top one percent could give a million dollars to every citizen, or is this a "blind statement" a liberal might make?

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              A million $$ per person is over 350 Trillion dollars.  No, I don't think it's factual at all.

              1. 84
                Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                This came from the same person who said I was making a blind statement when I said that the POTUS is trying to push us closer to socialism.  Hmmm. . .

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  So neither statement is factual!

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    One is shown to be untrue by simple arithmetic.  The other is a simple statement of fact - why then do you say neither is true?

                  2. 84
                    Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    It is a fact that Obamacare is a step CLOSER to socialism.

                  3. 84
                    Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, let's dismiss one statement, because the other is statistically false.  That's great reasoning.

            2. Fred Arnold profile image60
              Fred Arnoldposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I concede that I was quick to make an assumption and retract the first part of my statement. The rest holds true. And you should accept when you make blind statements and learn from them rather than use someone else's mistake in thought to justify your own. That just builds an argument around mistakes. If you'd like to read more about the psychological component that makes people act the way they do that drives my opinion on the factors that make socialism not work, I have a hub that has plenty of cited sources on the issue.

        3. gmwilliams profile image85
          gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          No use of explaining.
          http://s1.hubimg.com/u/11741942.jpg

    2. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000-capitalism, BEST BET for a quality standard of living!

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Another good joke! Try telling that one to the billions living in poverty as a result of capitalism.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          "as a result of capitalism."

          How can it be the result of capitalism, where everyone earns according to their work?  Shouldn't that be as a result of not working?

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            What about those not allowed to work or are expected to work for less than subsistence?

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I've never met anyone outside of a jail or underage that "wasn't allowed to work".

              As far as earning less than subsistence, well, if that's all you can produce you need to find another line of work.  Not all jobs produce something of more value than that "less than subsistence" and no employer should be forced to pay more for something than it's intrinsic value, as determined by what it can be sold for.  No committee in the world is competent to set values based on the needs of the seller - that can and does only result in socialism, or "getting something for nothing".

              1. gmwilliams profile image85
                gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Wilderness, take a deep breath, meditate...... No use in further discussion. You TRIED time and time again regarding the argument at hand.......
                http://s2.hubimg.com/u/11742227.jpg

                I am in agreement with your premise.  There are even underage children and criminals who DO work.  People can work if they have THE DESIRE to.  There ARE people who CAN but WON'T work.

                1. Fred Arnold profile image60
                  Fred Arnoldposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  So when someone disagrees with your opinion and gives a credible argument, it is pointless? Are you implying he is uneducated? Are you implying he should not discuss the issue because he differs in opinion?

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Got it in one! nobodies else's opinion or experience counts.

              2. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Haven't you? Or haven't you cared to see them? Every day I walk down the street and see them. Many of them were unemployed until the last recession made them unemployed and now they find themselves unable to commute to the far east where all the jobs have moved to.



                There you go again, a man is only worth what he is worth to another man! Artefacts are more important than the maker!  Pure capitalism!

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Don't know about you, but I don't buy people and therefore have no idea of what a man is worth.

                  What he produces, what the results of his labor is worth is, of course another story.  We all buy that, and all have a good idea of what it is worth.

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    But you buy a man's labour and thus value that man's labour!

                2. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh, you mean that because no one cares to buy the product they are selling (a specific labor) at this moment and place they are actively being prevented from working at all.  They can't mow lawns, they can't dig ditches, they can't paint houses, they can't do anything but hit the welfare office for another check.

                  Yes, I disagree.

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Well we are discussing different cultures here so I can only speak for the UK.
                    In the UK a man might find some work, though he'll find that many of his neighbours are in a similar position to him, no spare cash to pay somebody to mow his lawn, but then if he cannot find enough work to keep himself and his family, that little work bars him from claiming anything.
                    It's a brave (or foolish) man with a family to support who will cut off his own safety net.

  24. ahorseback profile image51
    ahorsebackposted 2 years ago

    Here ! here !,  " Intellectual laziness" !  I like that , 100 % right , and ethical , moral and social laziness to go along with it .  Capitalism allows , successfully,   for the individual accomplishments to be recognized .  One worker is happy with his meager paycheck . Another is an entrepreneur who will create a business of  paychecks for many others !  Another will , working hard , make  his way up through this very  system and  become  well off and successful ,YES another will work for minimum wages ie. that's why its called minimum wage , for whatever reason the menial wage for menial jobs .Whether that be because of mental  limitations or lower ended income of a business ! An example , food service ,  The only rich people in socialism are those who are smart enough to game the system of " one for all -all for one " Show me the rich  man who comes from socialism and I'll show you someone "connected " to the government . Or who was smart enough to  go outside of the socialism box and play the free market .  Enough said --- Our biggest problem  in America are those who are changing the demographics , those who  are expecting more to come from the "Many " and go to  the rest --that's the  largest cultural problem in America today ! And that includes corporate subsidies and welfare .

    1. Fred Arnold profile image60
      Fred Arnoldposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      It's a mental limitation to believe that society can only function in this crude set up. And a government governing the social programs to the extent you are talking about is communism. You really need to make the distinction.

      1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
        Dr Billy Kiddposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I don't know of a country with a modern economy that has a socialist government.

        But let's look at the so-called worst cases--communist governments. Take China, the Communist party had to embrace capitalism. And now, it's the biggest market in the world for German-made luxury cars (not the U.S., as free-marketers would believe).And WalMart is the biggest and most trusted grocery store!

        Then, take Cuba. It had to allow for a free market on owning homes and having restaurants. And now it had to deregulate the car market, allowing for imports.

        Those who raise the specter of socialism and communism don't know much about world affairs. Yes, there are dictatorships--like Saudi Arabia. But the divide between the rich and the poor in Arabia is not as big as that of the U.S.A.

        But yes, the welfare check is addictive. That's why President Clinton signed a law that says that no one can receive it (mother's with kids) for more than 5 years.

        So, what are we arguing about here? That's what I don't get.

  25. mdscoggins profile image87
    mdscogginsposted 2 years ago

    One true fact about President Obama is that he is the most questioned leader ever.  Questioned about his policies, questioned about his personal time and questioned even about being human.  Funny that no other president has underwent so much scrutiny.  As a people, I wonder why?  I have a few hunches and it is surely not his desire to play golf.  Just on race/ethnicity alone it was the perfect storm to use him as an example to smack on the erroneous label of the "worst president" as most of the positiveness from his presidency has been overlooked as Fred Arnold stated earlier.  Maybe as a society we should worry about the true issues and learn to put our own biases away and allow the man to do his job, certainly what Congress and the House couldn't do..

    1. 84
      Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Here we go again, the race card.  My hunch is that he's questioned, because his actions and policies warrant serious questions.

      Is he questioned more than ANY president?  I doubt that very much.  I'm pretty sure plenty of people would say that Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, FDR, Nixon, and even Carter had a lot of people questioning them too.

  26. Alphadogg16 profile image88
    Alphadogg16posted 2 years ago

    I don't even see the relevance of this, All of the Presidents take multiple vacations, trips, etc. A lot more than any of us normal folks can anyway. George Bush flew over the devastation of Hurricane Katrina coming back from a vacation. I'm not trying to defend Obama in anyway, hes not the best President, however he isn't the worst either. If you think everything is going to be better once Obama is out of office, you clearly don't understand the problems this country has.

  27. ahorseback profile image51
    ahorsebackposted 2 years ago

    Actually that is correct !  He isn't the worst president ever . But that is a far cry from an excuse for being just one more  like  all the others . We need major change in our choices of leaders in America . We have evolved into a culture of  a voting people choosing  our leaders like  we pick  the new "American Idol "......Not good enough . Voting and living in a democracy is a privilege that requires our responsible participation  ,Even   In elementary school we had to study for tests and to improve our grades in school , to improve our  minds and so  our lives . But as a voting public  we can let it all slide ?  And we sure did in 2008 !

  28. Alphadogg16 profile image88
    Alphadogg16posted 2 years ago

    Agreed.......it's actually becoming almost pathetic the way our society has become/handles things....No one is accountable for their actions, everything is labeled instead of resolved and the people we are supposedly held up to the highest standards are the liars and crooks. Until both parties (Democrat and Republican) start working together instead of against each other, things will never change.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      +1  A rare instance of evaluation here.

      1. gmwilliams profile image85
        gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Also concur with Alpha, the MOST LOGICAL statement  made by far!

    2. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I think this goes back a lot longer than many would like to believe.
      Your country used to provide us with great amusement when people would sue (and win substantial amounts of money) for actually doing idiotic things themselves.
      Now we don't laugh as much, we just do the same.

  29. ahorseback profile image51
    ahorsebackposted 2 years ago

    In all actuality , True and pure  Socialism would probably be a step up from what America IS  fast becoming ., And a true idealist would see that the newest track towards the future in America is more like MEonism  !

  30. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
    Dr Billy Kiddposted 2 years ago

    Let's get back to the original topic: vacations. Congress will work 8 days between September 1, 2014 and November 11, 2014. This, of course, includes declaring war and they taking 7 weeks off.

    Now, should we really call Obama a slacker for taking the time to relax and play some rounds of golf? Isn't he allowed some time off from managing a war?

    1. rhamson profile image78
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Don't kid yourself. They all are working 24/7/365 to get all your money that they can. smile

  31. WiccanSage profile image95
    WiccanSageposted 2 years ago

    I don't honestly care if he knocks balls around every day. I'm more concerned with the job he does while working than with what he does with time off.

    Unfortunately, he's not doing a good job even when he's on the job. That's the bigger problem-- he's a sucky leader.

    1. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      +1,000,000,000,000,000,000-isn't a leader but a disaster!  He's a joke really!  But there are "those" who applaud this disaster, how unfortunate indeed!

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, surrounding himself with Republicans was not a wise move.

        1. Onusonus profile image88
          Onusonusposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          They're called socialists.

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            lol lol

            1. rhamson profile image78
              rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              The funny thing is that we have so much socialism within our "democratic/republic" we for get what we do receive as a result. I have had many discussions with those who believe we should do away with the socialized police and fire departments. Do away with socialized prisons and especially socialized court officers. They would rather have us hire these individuals on a singular basis as they feel we would be better served through holding them accountable for their job related actions. Can you imagine getting a fireman to testify for a cop who witnessed an arson case all the while finding a judge to hear the case to convict and then sentence to a prison that will accept a contract to incarcerate the convict. You need some sort of socialized government to better serve the populace.

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I thought you were well down the road to private prisons, I know we are.

                1. rhamson profile image78
                  rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  There is an increasing amount of privately run prisons but they are paid for by the government. Hence the prisons are still technically socialist. For them to be totally private they would need to be funded by those who have been wronged and pay the private company to incarcerate their felon. It puts a whole new meaning to a bought judge.

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    No, no, private profit at the public expense is not socialism.

              2. GA Anderson profile image86
                GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                "...You need some sort of socialized government to better serve the populace."

                Blasphemy! Of course you are right, but how dare you speak that which should not be spoken.

                I am not sure I am against privatized penal institutions, ( I feel I am for it, but need to look into it more to be sure), but I completely agree with your law enforcement and social emergency, (firefighters), examples.

                GA

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Unless you believe that profit should be a factor in sentencing policy, how can you be in favour of private prisons?

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm missing the connection, unless you would also extend it back to police, fire, military and all other forms of protection.  What are you seeing between a judge doing the sentencing and a business run prison?

                  2. GA Anderson profile image86
                    GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    John, I am beginning to feel I am treating you rudely for not replying to your responses. I hope you will accept that that is not my intent.

                    GA

                2. rhamson profile image78
                  rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  A point of contention could arise if a private entity is sued or held accountable for a prisoners abuse or death. With the government running the facility there is an accountability that comes with being run by the government and subsequent operations would continue as usual with whatever modifications are warranted. But with a private entity the defense of the actions or admission of wrongdoing could result in a loss of the contract. Therefore the facts surrounding the case could have much more exposure to perjury and abuse. Mind you the civil servants and bureaucrats administering this could be subject to just as much corruption but the possibility is less because they will not stick their necks out to possibly lose their jobs for another.

  32. donotfear profile image93
    donotfearposted 2 years ago

    https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608030119438190482&amp;pid=15.1&amp;P=0

    1. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Succinctly stated I might add.  On to the next thread, NEXT!

 
working