Bush is a hero
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#160225 Mar 16, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you don't mind, I'll have to get back to you on this.
It's Friday night and I'm feeling mellow.
I don't want to get depress about the lack of progress.
"Mellow?"
People still say the word "mellow" in California?
Outloud?

Haaaaaaaaaaaaa
Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Haaaaaaaaaaa

Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#160226 Mar 16, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your turn. Why do you think a Hillary/Michelle administration would be "curtains"?
If Hillary died in office, Michelle Obama isn't qualified to be POTUS.

Can you libs get any weirder?
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#160227 Mar 16, 2013
A message to Michael Moore.

Published March 15, 2013
FoxNews.com


"Documentary filmmaker Michael Moore wants photographs of the children slaughtered in Newtown, Conn., at the Sandy Hook Elementary School to be released for public consumption.

His rationale is Americans will be so horrified by the carnage inflicted by Adam Lanza that they will demand gun control and effectively silence the NRA.

From a psychological perspective, Moore is arguing we traumatize Americans with grotesque images to such an extent that any rational argument about what caused the Sandy Hook tragedy ends, and people follow along with his absurd notion that guns and ammunition were what resulted in children dying there, rather than the obvious fact that our failed mental health care system is to blame.

To review the actual facts, Adam Lanza was a mentally ill man who lived in the windowless basement of his mother’s home. Inexplicably, she not only failed to secure her legally obtained firearms, but taught him to be a marksman.

Yet, this one-in-a-million scenario, which depended far more on Lanza never getting all the help he needed and being locked in a complex, unhealthy relationship with his mother (whom he shot to death), is heralded as a reason by Moore to violate the U.S. Constitution and take people’s right to bear arms away from them.

Moore apparently doesn’t care that showing photographs of dead, murdered children to the public would expose millions of children to those images, and might inflict the kind of psychological trauma upon them that contributes to making them shut down, lose empathy and become capable of violent acts themselves.

Moore apparently doesn’t understand that using dead children as a prop to make political points and elevate his political position is a failure of empathy and act of brazen narcissism.

Because the political underpinnings of what really happened to make this country defend human rights and free people from tyranny would be just as irrelevant to him as the underpinnings of what really happened in Newtown, where our shattered, shoddy mental health care system was again on display—as it was in Aurora, Colo., where James Holmes, who was also mentally ill, killed 12 people; and as it was near Tucson, Ariz., where Jared Lee Loughner, who was mentally ill, shot 19 people, killing six and severely wounding Rep. Gabby Giffords.

Here’s a psychiatrist’s advice for Moore: Heart disease kills almost 600,000 people per year in the United States. There are about 30,000 deaths from handguns. Most of those are suicides due to depression.

So, I suggest that, rather than releasing the pictures of slaughtered children, which will traumatize tens of millions of American children, he should release a naked photograph of himself.

Because, by his rationale (which I do not share), a full view of his obese torso could motivate people to stop drugging themselves with copious amounts of food and might put an end to a fair amount of heart disease."

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#160228 Mar 16, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>President Obama is, indeed, a con(!)sumate politician. He is a centrist who leans more heavily to the right, but whose 'Executive Policy' leans ostensibly to the left. The man has been re-elected to the highest office in the country, by appealing to the most voters who would otherwise vote the other way. That's American politics.

His wife has exemplified the best qualities of every publicly effective First Lady: Decisively and unashamedly raising her children; involvement in causes dear to her, regardless of popular sentiment; availability to the Public; and an innate fashion sense.
Three more years, and it's on to the next one.
One can only hope it's not Jeb Bush, although of all the dynastic heirs to that 'throne', he's the least offensive to the base of conservatives who USED TO comprise the Republican party.
Obama is about as "centrist" as he were parked on the left shoulder of a freeway.

Since: Sep 10

Hermosa Beach, CA

#160229 Mar 16, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
"Mellow?"
People still say the word "mellow" in California?
Outloud?
Haaaaaaaaaaaaa
Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Haaaaaaaaaaa
Mellow, dude, surf's up, Jerry, sweet, that's us.

Another great thing: Hardly any Republicans.

Since: Sep 10

Hermosa Beach, CA

#160230 Mar 16, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
If Hillary died in office, Michelle Obama isn't qualified to be POTUS.
Can you libs get any weirder?
We've barely started.

BTW, why isn't Michelle qualified?

Was she born in Kenya too?

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#160231 Mar 16, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
1) Moot. Millions of people in this country are intelligent. The actor James Woods has an reported IQ of 180 and I'll bet a Topix dollar if he were Commander in Chief he would have known the 'P' in Marine Corp was silent. An indication Obama didn't do well in the English portion of his SAT's perhaps? I wouldn't know. He has had his academic stats sealed and going only by his arrogance, I'm going to assume if he were "off the charts smart", they would have released them.
2) He has? Last I knew he studied law, international law, economics and social issues in college. Maybe you could provide me with a source for the assertion that he's "studied history carefully."

3) He's deceptive and secretive. He's masterful at getting votes and was elected in good part on his "likeability." Competence doesn't matter much in the view of the low information voter. Take you for example........
4) Wanting to "fundamentally transform America" doesn't translate into caring deeply for his country. He cares deeply about forcing this country into an ideology he prefers and envisions. He despises many things about this country.

5) Let me count the ways.
6) No one wanted HIM to fail. Nearly 50% of the country want his plan for America to fail. Big difference. Stop whining and creating some unseen force that people want the black guy to fail. There's no hidden plan to "take back the plantation," Catcher.

7) He is absolutely a socialist. What is up with you people and that word? You don't mind him enacting policies which promote socialism but you can't stomach the word. Francois Hollande President of France is his soul mate. Do some research and see for yourself the similarities in platforms.
8) Big flipping deal. Millions of Americans epitomize family values. I don't see him with an agressive agenda promoting responsible parenting in regard to the 70+% of African American girls/women having children out of wedlock along with the highest number of MIA fathers in our population. Personal responsibility doesn't sell for democrats. It's a contradiction to entitlements.

9) That's one sad looking nutshell.
10) That's because the reasons you like and admire this guy are flimsey.
Excellent post, Lyndi, and I agree with every word :) But I'd like to add something to your first point if I may, about intelligence--and this more for Catcher than for you :)

Sheer I.Q. is NO guarantee of a good or even effective POTUS. Knowing how to manage people--how to get along with them and how to get them to get along with each other--is way, WAY more important. FDR, for example, was no genius in terms of intelligence quotient, but he was absolutely brilliant at knowing how to get along with others, including people completely different from himself.

If intelligence were enough, all we'd have to do in this country is find the person with the highest I.Q. and we'd have it made, but intelligence isn't enough. That's because NOBODY, no matter how bright they are, can do everything alone. That's why there are lots of very intelligent people who still wind up working for others. They have the brains, but they don't know to manage people. At the end of the day, Catcher, people skills are more important than intelligence.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#160232 Mar 16, 2013
I don't know why, but I feel I ought to add this. Catcher, I don't know how old you are, but I beg of you to read that little sermon carefully. Believe me, excellent people skills (or lack thereof) can make or break not just a person's career, but his whole life.

And when I say "people skills" I don't mean piling on the b.s. Even somebody who does that well is doing no more than building a pile of manure. People skills consist largely of TREATING OTHERS AS YOU WANT TO BE TREATED, and in making them feel good about themselves and about persuading them to your point of view. And there's nothing dishonest or unethical about that.

Since: Sep 10

Hermosa Beach, CA

#160233 Mar 16, 2013
Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>
Excellent post, Lyndi, and I agree with every word :) But I'd like to add something to your first point if I may, about intelligence--and this more for Catcher than for you :)
Sheer I.Q. is NO guarantee of a good or even effective POTUS. Knowing how to manage people--how to get along with them and how to get them to get along with each other--is way, WAY more important. FDR, for example, was no genius in terms of intelligence quotient, but he was absolutely brilliant at knowing how to get along with others, including people completely different from himself.
If intelligence were enough, all we'd have to do in this country is find the person with the highest I.Q. and we'd have it made, but intelligence isn't enough. That's because NOBODY, no matter how bright they are, can do everything alone. That's why there are lots of very intelligent people who still wind up working for others. They have the brains, but they don't know to manage people. At the end of the day, Catcher, people skills are more important than intelligence.
I agree with you, and I was not implying that intelligence is the most important quality in a president--I was just stating that he is intelligent. A president must have the ability to draw the best people to his administration, the ability to work with the opposition, and the insight to make good judgments.
lisw

Delaware, OH

#160234 Mar 16, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
We've barely started.
BTW, why isn't Michelle qualified?
Was she born in Kenya too?
She's qualified. As I said she has managed a hospital and knows the ins and outs of business. that would make her more qualified than her husband. You don't have to be a politician to be potus. I think it's better if you aren't. But Michelle isn't Eva Peron, not by a long shot.

Since: Sep 10

Hermosa Beach, CA

#160235 Mar 16, 2013
Roberta G wrote:
I don't know why, but I feel I ought to add this. Catcher, I don't know how old you are, but I beg of you to read that little sermon carefully. Believe me, excellent people skills (or lack thereof) can make or break not just a person's career, but his whole life.
And when I say "people skills" I don't mean piling on the b.s. Even somebody who does that well is doing no more than building a pile of manure. People skills consist largely of TREATING OTHERS AS YOU WANT TO BE TREATED, and in making them feel good about themselves and about persuading them to your point of view. And there's nothing dishonest or unethical about that.
I agree fully with your post.

I may be older than you think. I have had a long career--a successful one too. And I have learned much of what you mention, along the way. As a result, I am much better at what I do than I used to be, and I enjoy my work far more too.
lisw

Delaware, OH

#160236 Mar 16, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Mellow, dude, surf's up, Jerry, sweet, that's us.
Another great thing: Hardly any Republicans.
Gag me with a spoon.
Michael

Lynbrook, NY

#160237 Mar 16, 2013
To be honest, what really scares me is that Bush might truly have thought that he and his administration WAS doing the "right" thing.

I don't think he was a hero. But neither is he evil either. Ignorant would be the best word to describe him.
Larry

Rochester, MN

#160238 Mar 16, 2013

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#160239 Mar 16, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with you, and I was not implying that intelligence is the most important quality in a president--I was just stating that he is intelligent. A president must have the ability to draw the best people to his administration, the ability to work with the opposition, and the insight to make good judgments.
Yes, and in that sense I'll acknowledge that Obama seems to have good people skills. How I wish he'd channel them toward completely different goals from the ones he has now.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#160240 Mar 16, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree fully with your post.
I may be older than you think. I have had a long career--a successful one too. And I have learned much of what you mention, along the way. As a result, I am much better at what I do than I used to be, and I enjoy my work far more too.
Funny how that goes, isn't it?

;)

Since: Sep 10

Hermosa Beach, CA

#160241 Mar 16, 2013
Larry wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/sarah-pa lin-compares-obama-bernie-mado ff-sips-big-200807860--abc-new s-politics.html
LOL
Hey Lyndi, did you get a new gig as a speech writer?

There's you all over Sarah's oration.

Since: Sep 10

Hermosa Beach, CA

#160242 Mar 16, 2013
Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and in that sense I'll acknowledge that Obama seems to have good people skills. How I wish he'd channel them toward completely different goals from the ones he has now.
You don't share his ideology.

Different strokes for different folks. Look at me, I suffered through the Bush years.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#160243 Mar 16, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't share his ideology.
Different strokes for different folks. Look at me, I suffered through the Bush years.
I "don't share Obama's ideology."

Gee, whatever gave you that idea?

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#160244 Mar 16, 2013
Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, I sincerely thank you for taking the time to answer my question. But perhaps I should have been more specific. In your opinion, what has Obama ACCOMPLISHED? Never mind what he hasn't done for whatever reason--what HAS he done?
A quik list of accomplishments during his administration:
signed equal pay law first day in office,
expanded hate crimes laws,
enacted health care reforms that had been talked about by both parties for the last four decades,
revamped the student loan program,
increased national service programs,
“cash for clunkers” program which served the purpose it was meant to serve, no more nor less,
averted a catastrophic financial collapse,
signed the single largest tax cut in history,
enacted Wall Street reforms (tho' far too little too late),
enacted consumer protections,
appointed the first Hispanic justice to the Supreme Court,
signed a new nuclear weapons treaty with Russia,
provided 9/11 first responders with benefits,
repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden, as well as many other Al Qaeda leaders,
signed agreement to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan,
helped overthrow Muammar Gaddafi,
imposed new sanctions on Iran,
extended employment benefits to same sex partners,
restored a measure of prestige to America on the global stage.

There are many others. Now, you asked for a list of accomplishments, as if there were absolutely none. You can disagree with the size and scope, but you can hardly disqualify these under the strict definition of the term.

He's also had disappointing failures. He does well in elaborating a vision, but depends on others to put together the fine print. Early on he seemed to really think he could craft bipartisan agreement, and was sorely disappointed. I'm certain we disagree as to the reasons for this failure, but the effort was sincere. It appears he has learned from his naivete, and learned to play a little hardball. It remains to be seen how that will play out, but his re-election numbers as well as the national races in total indicate how a majority of the voters feel about it. He's failed to close Gitmo as promised, but this is more another indicator of naivete than unwillingness. He's continued many of the more egregious aspects of the Patriot Act.

As far as I'm concerned, his most tragic and far-reaching failure is the unwillingness to enact true financial reform, unwillingness to challenge Wall St or the financial industry, and unwillingness to hold Big Bank executives responsible for their overt crimes leading to the fiscal meltdown. If for nothing else, it is for this reason alone that, when I hear people toss out the word "socialist", I know dang well they're talking out their hoo-hoo. This guy is hard-wired to the capitalist oligarchy, like it or not. Seeing as Clinton was as well, it seems a hazard of the job today.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 2 hr Slaughterhouse 100,537
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 hr guest 670,351
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 6 hr another viewer 980,168
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 6 hr Jehowa Witness 46,179
Treating others with respect 8 hr UnderstandPeople 14
Do any attractive cougars or milfs want to trad... (Dec '11) 9 hr Seejay 4
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 11 hr Peter Ross 6,147
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 22 hr Pegasus 286,455
More from around the web