Haphazard Musings: Get The Lead Out

Saturday, December 27, 2008

Get The Lead Out

I'm sick of the Republicans whining about how bad things are going to be once Obama takes office. As if it is up to one man to fix everything.

This is a country, people. It's up to us, We The People, to make positive change. Obama's not going to do it alone, and it's a LEADER we need right now, not a fall guy, and if anybody can inspire a nation into action, I think Obama can.

If the Republicans want to hang on dearly to their grim view of the future and fill their lives with doom and gloom, then I say let them have it. This country seems so divided that perhaps it should split up. Create an East and West (Divided States?) and make the Republicans live in and rule their side, and everyone else live in and rule their side, and then we can compare to see who's system works best.

Wouldn't that be fun?

I can only speak for myself, but I'm tired of living in the Divided States of America, and this country is sorely in need of something to unite the people again. The every-man-for-himself philosophy just doesn't work and only leads to greed and government bail-outs (that don't solve, much less address, the problem).

I think the vision that the founders of this country had in mind when they formed this government, was to have a government in place as an entity to keep things from getting out of control, not to be IN control. Hence, "We The People, by the people, for the people..." Sounds to me it was intended that the people of this country decide how it is to be run, and that the government REPRESENTATIVES actually REPRESENT the interest of the people.

Unfortunately, greed does not stop at money, but includes power as well, and subsequently, this country has suffered from greedy, power hungry "leaders" who couldn't give a flying fuck about what the people want, as long as the people THINK their leaders are acting in the people's best interests.

I don't know if Obama is any different. But I get the sense that he is, and we can surely hope that he is. Let's just hope he listens to his advisors and to the voice of the people and their representatives (who might actually represent them) and gives some power back to the people where it belongs.

I for one choose to believe the next few years will be good ones - because I'm going to do what I can to MAKE it that way! What you focus on expands. So, those who want to continue falling into the abyss (or who so desire to continue creating new fissures to fall into), pay no mind to them and let them fall on their own.

Let there be no lemmings. It's time to take responsibility for your freedoms, people, and do something about it. Leaders cannot change anything - they can only inspire us to make changes. We have the power, and don't let any greedy, power-hungry nay sayer take that away from you or make you believe otherwise.

Live life empowered!

Smile at someone and see where it goes.

9 Comments:

At 28/12/08 9:37 AM, Jude said…

GREAT post! You've got the (only) right attitude, and I hope there are enough of you out there to instill some change.

The Divided States of America just doesn't sound as good, does it?
At 30/12/08 3:38 PM, Orion said…

Um, where was this attitude for the last 8 years while we were at War?

Where was this attitude while the folks on the coasts did everything that they could to actively destroy this country and everything it stands for? Where was this attitude as Leftists across the country called for impeachment (obviously not understanding what the process is about or how it works), revolt, mutiny, and civil war?

Where was this attitude as Leftists endlessly protested in front of Walter Reed Hospital? Where was this attitude as Leftists burned recruiting offices and spit on returning Veterans, burned US Flags, flew them upside down, protested at FUNERALS and trashed memorials across the country?

NOW, after the Leftists have staged their coup, NOW they want everyone to get along and play nice. Why am I not surprised? Sorry, 'aint happening. They've pulled off their destruction of a Constitutional Government, fine. But I'm not going to like it, nor am I going to accept it.

You have hope that Obama is different. Forgive me, but that is beyond naive. The man is a Chicago Machine politician. Study his record and see just how very different he is - Not one little tiny bit. He works with and for an insanely corrupt group of Stalinist power grabbers and has stated that he intends to do pretty much the exact OPPOSITE of what you wish for.

His legislative record (mostly local as he's been absent from his Federal post for almost his entire tenure there and didn't vote when he WAS there) is one of assaulting the Bill of Rights and taking all power for the State.

I have to admit - I've read so many posts like this that I'm to the stage where they're quite funny. I listened to and read so many articles describing how the Left was taking power and how they were going to round up those on the Right and make them pay, put them on trial, etc etc etc that this is just freakin' hilarious.

Eight YEARS of rabid, deranged hatred and treason and NOW everyone wants to play nice. I wonder if the folks in Moscow got a similar message after Lenin and Trotsky moved in.

We were well on our way to this mess since Kennedy and both parties are greatly at fault for the murder of the United States of America. The Libs just got really obvious about their naked power grab - and pulled it off. They were far more willing to rig the election than the Conservatives. All of the contests that I watched went the same way - and appear to be continuing to do so. The next four years should be illustrative. Wanna bet we see the same magic trend continue?

Your 'split' suggestion has merit and is likely to come quicker than you think. But consider this - the coasts don't exactly raise a hell of a lot of food. Or anything else, for that matter other than taxes. And the 'fly-over' states you all loathe so damn much have all the guns and the expertise and will to use them. Might not turn out so well for the Code Pink nation.

Great Leader and the traitors who facilitated his installation can go to hell.

Orion
At 30/12/08 9:24 PM, Bill said…

This attitude was absent over the last eight years because the man in the oval office was not a leader. He made unilateral decisions and did not stand as a representative of the people of this country. Whether his actions were right, wrong, good or bad, he did nothing to unite the people. Never before have I seen such divisiveness between people, and never before have I seen such an extreme division - you're either on the right or you're on the left, as if there is no in-between.

Kind of sounds reminiscent of the infamous words out of the mouth of our illustrious leader, "you're either with us, or against us." That says it all right there. The man was never a leader, and steered this boat solely on the basis of his own personal principles.

If We The People of the United States of America are not considered when the man at the top makes his all important decisions, then he can't be much of a leader. He never did anything to unite anyone. Standing behind a podium and shaking a mighty fist does not a leader make. The reasons for engaging in war were clouded in ambiguity and mistrust to the point where no amount of damage control could change prevailing opinions. Had he rallied The People and gained support and consensus before engaging, or at least somehow clearly convinced us of reasons why engaging in such a war was necessary and how it would be successful, and how that success was defined BEFORE embarking on such a significant action, rather than simply responding with a knee-jerk reaction and expecting damage control to clean up in the wake, things might have been different.

The guy simply did not, and does not, represent the interest of We The People. Our elected officials are supposed to REPRESENT us. Bush didn't. Bush apparently was incapable of motivational speaking, therefore did NOTHING to unite the people in this monumentally significant cause. Even if he was, he was so mistrusted by so many people that his words would have fallen flat anyway.

The guy is not a leader, was not a leader, and will never be a leader, despite how the history books will be written. He lacked the ability to inspire others, much less instill trust in others of himself. He stubbornly sticks to his own principles, his own agendas, and his own faith.

That's why this attitude was absent the past eight years. He never fostered it. He never fed it. He never nurtured it. His interests were self-serving. Whether or not he TECHNICALLY did something good for this country, he certainly failed at convincing a great many people of getting on board with him. And when you get a large segment of the population (call them leftists if you want, even though it's quite a mix) who opposes your decisions, how can you expect them to be united in the cause? How can you expect them to WANT to be united in the cause?

You can't. And that is where Bush failed. The next four years will be interesting indeed. Surely, the right wing folks will do their best to set up Obama for failure to support their tall tales. What's funny is standing in the middle and watching the left and the right go at it with each other, pushing their agendas, painting their pictures, making the other side look bad. Gone are the days when a leader can actually stand on his own merits. Any more, it all seems to come down to which machine you want to root for.

I say fuck the machines.
At 30/12/08 9:38 PM, Bill said…

P.S. I didn't understand the comment about the coasts and growing food and the loathsome "fly-over" states, or what that was even related to, but as for having guns, I thought it was a constitutional right to bear arms. Do you think only right-wing folks have guns and the expertise to use them?
At 30/12/08 10:53 PM, Orion said…

This attitude was absent over the last eight years because the man in the oval office was not a leader.
He was the elected President of the United States. I thought that would qualify him for some support from American citizens rather than large groups of communist-supported protestors calling for his impeachment for anything and everything he did.

He made unilateral decisions and did not stand as a representative of the people of this country. Whether his actions were right, wrong, good or bad, he did nothing to unite the people.
"Unilateral decisions" - You need to review the history of his decisions and see exactly who, in Congress, voted with him. I think you'll find that with very, very broad bi-partisan support his decisions weren't "Unilateral"

Did nothing to unite the people. What was he supposed to do?

Never before have I seen such divisiveness between people, and never before have I seen such an extreme division - you're either on the right or you're on the left, as if there is no in-between.
Which was caused by which group, again? Was it Left or Right that was out in the streets calling for his impeachment? Left or Right that was burning recruiting offices and spitting on veterans? Left or Right manufacturing documents to fix an election? Left or Right that was actively aiding our enemies in time of war? What was it that the folks who weren't frothing anti-Bush people DID to cause such an extreme division? Or was that division caused by the Anti-Bush folks? I seem to recall counter-protests organized by people in reaction to Code Pink, MoveOn, ANSWER, and so on - Again, in reaction to. The cause was all one-sided.

Kind of sounds reminiscent of the infamous words out of the mouth of our illustrious leader, "you're either with us, or against us." That says it all right there. The man was never a leader, and steered this boat solely on the basis of his own personal principles.
I disagree with that, I'm afraid. Do you believe he did NOTHING good? I'm seriously curious here - What do you really know about Bush and what he accomplished while in office?

If We The People of the United States of America are not considered when the man at the top makes his all important decisions, then he can't be much of a leader.
Actually, he's been accused of paying entirely too much attention to polls and making too many decisions based upon public opinion...Kinda the opposite of what you are accusing him of.

He never did anything to unite anyone. Standing behind a podium and shaking a mighty fist does not a leader make.
Again, what would you have him do? What would make him the shining leader you wanted?

The reasons for engaging in war were clouded in ambiguity and mistrust to the point where no amount of damage control could change prevailing opinions.
Um, in reality they were crystal-clear and laid out in such a fashion as to achieve very, very broad support from both parties in Congress. The ambiguity came about due to the way the Press reported things and how folks began to score political points off the war. Here's what looks like a good summary of why - including the Democrat support for the war. (fast scan - I didn't read it)

Had he rallied The People and gained support and consensus before engaging, or at least somehow clearly convinced us of reasons why engaging in such a war was necessary
He did that. He did that so well that he had 77 US Senators (including 29 of the 50 Democrats) and 297 US Congressmen (including 82 of the 208 Democrats) voting for it.

and how it would be successful, and how that success was defined BEFORE embarking on such a significant action, rather than simply responding with a knee-jerk reaction and expecting damage control to clean up in the wake, things might have been different.
Name a war that they did that in - Other than, perhaps, WWII where the definition of success was "utterly destroy Germany and Japan from one end to the other." - which isn't exactly acceptable in today's world.

The guy simply did not, and does not, represent the interest of We The People. Our elected officials are supposed to REPRESENT us. Bush didn't.
Well, a majority of voters in two different elections seemed to think that he did.

Bush apparently was incapable of motivational speaking,
Boy you got THAT right. I don't think he could motivate a kelptomaniac to steal.

therefore did NOTHING to unite the people in this monumentally significant cause. Even if he was, he was so mistrusted by so many people that his words would have fallen flat anyway.
Well, he united them long enough to get us IN there - but as soon as it was even slightly difficult, the bi-partisanship went out the window and everyone started scoring cheap political points. And that's where he really, really failed. No ability to keep it together.

The guy is not a leader, was not a leader, and will never be a leader, despite how the history books will be written. He lacked the ability to inspire others, much less instill trust in others of himself. He stubbornly sticks to his own principles, his own agendas, and his own faith.
Um. You just defined a leader there - A leader LEADS based upon his principles, agendas and faith rather than bending to the will of whatever poll is being taken at the moment. See, that's someone who FOLLOWS. Bush sucked at MOTIVATING and at INSPIRING, but he certainly lead. Just couldn't get much more than half the country to FOLLOW and that only on a few topics. I don't know ANYONE who liked his economic policies or most of his social policies.

That's why this attitude was absent the past eight years. He never fostered it. He never fed it. He never nurtured it. His interests were self-serving.
So because he wasn't the inspirational speaker people wanted, it's OK to trash him and create a massive division across the country. And then when an inspirational speaker - who scares the SHIT out of everyone who's studied him (such as this former Obama supporter who refers to him as a 'Monster in Embryo') it's time to put those divisions away.

That is so illogical that it borders on insanity. A major segment of the population behaves like a spoiled child for 8 years and actively tries to destroy the country and when they finally get their way (much to their own dismay, now), they want everyone to play nice and pretend that the past 8 years never happened? C'mon, dude. That makes no sense whatsoever. You cannot piss on people, scream, throw tantrums, insult people, call for their imprisonment and death for almost a DECADE and then ask everyone to ignore it all.

Whether or not he TECHNICALLY did something good for this country, he certainly failed at convincing a great many people of getting on board with him.
True that. No matter what he accomplished that was good - and there was quite a lot - it's all gotten lost in the fog of Bush Derangement Syndrome and a media that wouldn't cover him being able to cure cancer by touch.

And when you get a large segment of the population (call them leftists if you want, even though it's quite a mix) who opposes your decisions, how can you expect them to be united in the cause? How can you expect them to WANT to be united in the cause?
It is, but it's mostly Leftists - Although a more accurate title would be 'Statists'. Though he's done a LOT to help the Statist cause. Just not as much as Great Leader and his cronies.

See, I don't care if they are united in the cause - unless it's war. Support the war effort and fight a clean fight. Commiting treason 'aint that. Doing everything you can to cause us to lose 'aint that. You can be LOYAL OPPOSITION - basically what you're asking for and what we had during WWI and WWII - without behaving like a bunch of screaming children and traitors, which is what we've had for the past 8 years.

You can't. And that is where Bush failed. The next four years will be interesting indeed. Surely, the right wing folks will do their best to set up Obama for failure to support their tall tales.
Which tall tales are those? And I doubt they'll try to set him up for failure - He's handing out the usual favors of any Great Leader after a coup: You get to stay in power and keep sucking off the public teat. They love it.

What's funny is standing in the middle and watching the left and the right go at it with each other, pushing their agendas, painting their pictures, making the other side look bad. Gone are the days when a leader can actually stand on his own merits. Any more, it all seems to come down to which machine you want to root for.
Ex-fucking-lactly. As I said - the rise of the State has gone on since FDR. The Leftists have just finished it off with their coup.

I say fuck the machines.
With you on that, brother!

I'd like to see us all work together too - To throw out the Statist assholes who have taken over our country and restore a representative Constitutional Republic to government.

P.S. I didn't understand the comment about the coasts and growing food and the loathsome "fly-over" states, or what that was even related to, but as for having guns, I thought it was a constitutional right to bear arms. Do you think only right-wing folks have guns and the expertise to use them?
Not ONLY - Just MOSTLY. You'll note that most 'Blue' areas have done away with the 2nd Amendment. And have the crime to show for it.
You had commented that we need to split the country in twain - the Coasts and the Red States. It's been proposed before, but it has an issue - California is bankrupt. The Coasts (the Blue areas) like Blue areas across the country, generate little in the way of power, food, fuel, or water. So, if such a split were to happen they would find themselves cold, hungry, and thirsty - and facing people who were already armed and skilled in the use of those arms unlike the vast majority of folks in the Blue areas. Personally, I'd love to see such a split - It'd last about two months and then we'd have one country again, albeit with a much lower population. LOL

Orion
At 31/12/08 5:59 PM, Bill said…

"He was the elected President of the United States. I thought that would qualify him for some support from American citizens..."
There was contention from day one as to whether Bush was actually elected. He didn't have the popular vote. And this would be a sorry system if the president was above the law, above reproach, and above protest. That would make him a dictator. I'm sure he got support from those who voted for him, but I happen to know a few people who voted for him and now wish they never did. Support comes when someone demonstrates that they are worthy of support, and I'm sure there were plenty of people who didn't vote for him who gave him a chance in the beginning. We vote for candidates who we believe best represent our interests and who we believe are best suited for the position. I can support someone who has a different stance on some issues than I do - hell, every president has - but Bush was just so off-center and repeatedly demonstrated that he could not be trusted, and consistently acted in opposition to what I believed to be right, so eventually I just could not find anything redeeming enough to offer my support.

"You need to review the history of his decisions and see exactly who, in Congress, voted with him. I think you'll find that with very, very broad bi-partisan support his decisions weren't 'Unilateral'"
OK. But it seems like this information should be easy to find on the Internet. I've tried to find a point-by-point account of Bush's accomplishments during his two terms on the Internet, but all I keep running into are the Bush-hater lists. Why is it so hard to find the good stuff?

"Did nothing to unite the people. What was he supposed to do?"
Not lying to them would be a good start. Standing up and saying this is what I am doing, despite wide protest, doesn't help. Setting up free speech zones away from the public eye to hide away protestors certainly didn't do the trick. I've never heard him even address those who opposed him - I'm not sure he ever stood up (or sat down) in a state of the union address and said anything to the effect of, hey, this may seem inappropriate to some, but these are the reasons why we're doing this and this and this - with valid reasons that were not simply comprised of words designed to placate, colorize and screen.

"Never before have I seen such divisiveness between people, and never before have I seen such an extreme division - you're either on the right or you're on the left, as if there is no in-between."
"Which was caused by which group, again?"
Both. That's kind of the nature of division between groups.
"Was it Left or Right that was out in the streets calling for his impeachment?"
Probably predominately Left, but in reality a mix - simply people who believed his actions warranted impeachment.
"Left or Right that was burning recruiting offices and spitting on veterans?"
Lunatics. Just lunatics. Rebellious people who probably didn't know WHAT side they were on and who were looking for an excuse to lash out. Convenient though to just shove them into the Left category. After all, the Right is pure and...well...right. Right?
"Left or Right manufacturing documents to fix an election?"
Hmmm. In which election?
"Left or Right that was actively aiding our enemies in time of war?"
Left or Right that was actively aiding our enemies and selling them weapons during peacetime?
"What was it that the folks who weren't frothing anti-Bush people DID to cause such an extreme division?"
They probably completely dismissed the people who WERE anti-Bush (or who at least were against his policies and decisions...and etics and principles...before they became fully anti-Bush), giving them no voice, no validation, no value.
"Or was that division caused by the Anti-Bush folks? I seem to recall counter-protests organized by people in reaction to Code Pink, MoveOn, ANSWER, and so on - Again, in reaction to. The cause was all one-sided."
Code Pink (whatever that is), MoveOn, ANSWER, etc., I suspect may have contributed to the enhancement of that division, but only as a reflection of a division that was already in the works. Just exactly how does one-sided division work, anyway?

"Kind of sounds reminiscent of the infamous words out of the mouth of our illustrious leader, 'you're either with us, or against us.' That says it all right there. The man was never a leader, and steered this boat solely on the basis of his own personal principles."
"I disagree with that, I'm afraid. Do you believe he did NOTHING good? I'm seriously curious here - What do you really know about Bush and what he accomplished while in office?"
I never said he did no good or didn't do anything right. But it's hard to acknowledge, much less give cudos to, the decent efforts of someone who is overshadowed by mistrust and who is perceived to be acting against the best interests of the people. His principles were his own and he didn't provide much reason for many of us to trust his principles, especially for those who didn't share them. That's where he failed as a leader.

"Again, what would you have him do? What would make him the shining leader you wanted?"
Do something - anything - to foster trust. Stand up as a representative of the people, and not just as an almighty leader of the mighty United States. I swear, every time he walked up to a podium, it appeared as though he was saying, "OMG, look at me - I'm the PRESIDENT!" If he did anything to make the people feel involved in the process (whether they agreed or disagreed), he could have avoided a lot of opposition. There's a big difference between being "THE" president and being "YOUR" president. "Welcoming" is not a word I would use when describing the man.

"The reasons for engaging in war were clouded in ambiguity and mistrust to the point where no amount of damage control could change prevailing opinions."
"Um, in reality they were crystal-clear and laid out in such a fashion as to achieve very, very broad support from both parties in Congress."
OK. And how closely were those crystal-clear plans followed? How well did those plans work out? In my recollection, it was going to be quick. In and out - measured in weeks, tops. And what were the reasons for engaging? Did they turn out to be valid? Where ARE those "weapons of mass destruction?" In hindsight, is Congress happy?

"Had he rallied The People and gained support and consensus before engaging, or at least somehow clearly convinced us of reasons why engaging in such a war was necessary"
"He did that. He did that so well that he had 77 US Senators (including 29 of the 50 Democrats) and 297 US Congressmen (including 82 of the 208 Democrats) voting for it."
That means 48 Republican senators and 215 Republican congressmen (for a count of 263 Republicans vs. 111 Democrats) voted for it - nearly 2:1 heavy on the Republican side. And what about the citizens? Were they all convinced and on-board? Apparently not.

"The guy simply did not, and does not, represent the interest of We The People. Our elected officials are supposed to REPRESENT us. Bush didn't."
"Well, a majority of voters in two different elections seemed to think that he did."
Funny how when it comes to Bush winning the election, it was simply a majority of voters that called it, as if it was that clean and clear-cut, yet Obama's election was an "installment." THAT is THE MOST entertaining story playing out on the Right Wing agenda, currently. Bush's first term election was so close, it was barely a majority, and perhaps it was a majority of VOTERS (if you can trust the vote count, since he didn't have the popular vote), but I suspect it wasn't the majority of PEOPLE. I'm not sure how he won the second election. I'm still trying to figure that one out. Hmm. Perhaps it was an INSTALLMENT by the Right. Maybe that's why they recognize it in this election.

"Well, he united them long enough to get us IN there - but as soon as it was even slightly difficult, the bi-partisanship went out the window and everyone started scoring cheap political points. And that's where he really, really failed. No ability to keep it together."
He united who he HAD to unite to push his agenda through - did he unite the people? Things fell apart because he made a bad decision. He obviously was either ill-prepared or ill-informed, since this "war" was supposed to be an in-and-out job. But once we were in, he had to finish the job to save face. And that really worked out well, don't you think?

"Um. You just defined a leader there - A leader LEADS based upon his principles, agendas and faith rather than bending to the will of whatever poll is being taken at the moment."
A true leader is elected because his principles, agendas and faith are shared by the majority of people - the people who ELECTED him. Personally, I don't consider 51% or 52% a majority, since that means nearly half the population doesn't agree. Bush lead based on HIS principles, agendas and faith that were all his own, shared by some and rejected by others. He led by dragging half the people behind him kicking and screaming. So, no wonder so many people are kicking and screaming. Just what IS there to like about the guy?

"That is so illogical that it borders on insanity. A major segment of the population behaves like a spoiled child for 8 years and actively tries to destroy the country and when they finally get their way (much to their own dismay, now), they want everyone to play nice and pretend that the past 8 years never happened? C'mon, dude. That makes no sense whatsoever. You cannot piss on people, scream, throw tantrums, insult people, call for their imprisonment and death for almost a DECADE and then ask everyone to ignore it all."
Typically, when a story seems so illogical that it borders on insanity, it's because someone got the story wrong. Who's asking anyone to ignore what? No, you cannot piss on people, scream, throw tantrums, insult people, then ask everyone to ignore it all. And as long as you see opposition as spoiled brats instead of as people who might actually have value, validity and merit in their position, then there will only ever be division. And perhaps there forever will be. In a sense, I hope so, because that means we're a people of individuality and uniqueness and diversity and not just some conformist group of lemming followers as it appears the Right wants us all to be.

"Though he's done a LOT to help the Statist cause. Just not as much as Great Leader and his cronies."
I guess since the Great Leader was INSTALLED and not ELECTED, he does not qualify for some support by the American citizens? When Bush got elected for his first term, I at least gave him the benefit of the doubt and said, "maybe it won't be that bad." I'm giving the new guy the same consideration, only this time I'm saying, "surely, it won't be THAT bad." We'll see if this leader fails us or not - at least this one, going in, brings in inspiration and hope (whereas Bush scared the hell out of me the minute he announced he was running). Only time will tell if he is a Romulan infiltrator, or one of the good guys. Maybe you know better, but I'm pretty fuckin' far from convinced.

"See, I don't care if they are united in the cause - unless it's war."
Isn't that exactly the problem here? This country (and others) is NOT united in this war. What is a clean fight, anyway? It's difficult to be loyal to a leader who is perceived to not be loyal to the people.

"Which tall tales are those?"
As I mentioned, the good one right now is an unrealistic tale about how an African American man of questionable origin was installed into office. Now there's a story that is so illogical that it borders on insanity.

"I'd like to see us all work together too - To throw out the Statist assholes who have taken over our country and restore a representative Constitutional Republic to government."
Sounds good to me.

"You had commented that we need to split the country in twain - the Coasts and the Red States."
Actaually, I meant just split it right down the geological center. It was all hypothetical anyway. :)
At 31/12/08 8:35 PM, Orion said…

There was contention from day one as to whether Bush was actually elected. He didn't have the popular vote. And this would be a sorry system if the president was above the law, above reproach, and above protest. That would make him a dictator.
Yes, there was contention. Resolved by repeated investigation by everyone on both sides of the aisle.

And the President has NEVER been elected via the popular vote. There have been prior Presidents who won the Electoral Vote (which is the one that matters) and not the Popular Vote (which doesn't). We've used this system since the TWelfth Amendment in 1804.

I'm sure he got support from those who voted for him, but I happen to know a few people who voted for him and now wish they never did.
Well, not a lot. The man didn't get a lot of support from anyone and the constant negative media blitz really didn't help.

Support comes when someone demonstrates that they are worthy of support, and I'm sure there were plenty of people who didn't vote for him who gave him a chance in the beginning.
And Obama has certainly not demonstrated that he's worthy of support. Abject terror, yes. Support, not so much.

We vote for candidates who we believe best represent our interests and who we believe are best suited for the position. I can support someone who has a different stance on some issues than I do - hell, every president has -
Same here. That's been the basis of our Rrepublic for over 200 years. Pity that got destroyed in the last 8 years.

but Bush was just so off-center and repeatedly demonstrated that he could not be trusted, and consistently acted in opposition to what I believed to be right, so eventually I just could not find anything redeeming enough to offer my support.
Didn't seem all that different from any other politician to me. None of them are trustworthy.

OK. But it seems like this information should be easy to find on the Internet. I've tried to find a point-by-point account of Bush's accomplishments during his two terms on the Internet, but all I keep running into are the Bush-hater lists. Why is it so hard to find the good stuff?
There's been a fair amount of research showing that the biggest posters (most links, most hits) are very left-wing. The Left has always been considerably more vocal than the right; Most conservatives seem to be busy with jobs while most liberals seem to have little to do but attend protests and post screeds...It's been a running joke for a number of years: The Right has Talk Radio, the Left has the Internet and the Media.

That's why it's hard to find the good stuff...It's also ALL going to have a political bent, so you're going to have to pick which ones you like. Here's a very, very right wing list.

I note that it doesn't include all the AIDS research he's supported, the aid to Africa, the private support and meetings with the families of Soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan,and so on.

Not lying to them would be a good start. Standing up and saying this is what I am doing, despite wide protest, doesn't help.
What did he lie about? And did that keep you from supporting Clinton? If you'll recall, he was actually IMPEACHED for his lies.

Setting up free speech zones away from the public eye to hide away protestors certainly didn't do the trick.
As I've pointed out before, this was a trick created and used heavily by Democrats before Bush ever used it. I don't recall the same hue and cry about it at that time, so I'm not quite sure why it's a problem now. The only difference I see is one is Bush is a Republican, Clinton a Democrat. As usual, the Dems get a pass for the same things that Republicans get ripped for.

I've never heard him even address those who opposed him
In what fashion? He's often spoke of reaching out to those who have differing views, working together, yada yada yada. What is it that you were looking for?

- I'm not sure he ever stood up (or sat down) in a state of the union address and said anything to the effect of, hey, this may seem inappropriate to some, but these are the reasons why we're doing this and this and this - with valid reasons that were not simply comprised of words designed to placate, colorize and screen.
He did so in pretty much in EVERY State of the Union Address. Or is it just that you disagreed with his reasons?

Both. That's kind of the nature of division between groups.
But the Left was the one actively calling for a division and refusing to work with the other side in the most childish fashion imaginable. How many nude anti-Obama protests do you forsee Republicans doing in the next however-many-years Obama rules?

Probably predominately Left, but in reality a mix - simply people who believed his actions warranted impeachment.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find ANYONE on the Right who was calling for his impeachment.

Lunatics. Just lunatics. Rebellious people who probably didn't know WHAT side they were on and who were looking for an excuse to lash out.
Strangely, they pretty much all self-identify as Leftists. Lots of Communist rhetoric, posters, Obama campaign materials and so on.

Convenient though to just shove them into the Left category.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find ANYONE to put them into any OTHER category.

After all, the Right is pure and...well...right. Right?
Nope. They're as moronic as the Left. They just haven't been out there creating division, destroying the country, aiding our enemies, committing treason, holding nude impeach-Bush protests, burning down recruiting offices, and so on.

"Left or Right manufacturing documents to fix an election?"
Hmmm. In which election?
Kerry in 2004, of course, the infamous Rathergate. I'm unaware of the Republicans forging documents and presenting them as part of a nationwide broadcast 'investigative journalism' program in an attempt to influence an election. Am I missing one?

Left or Right that was actively aiding our enemies and selling them weapons during peacetime?
Both. But if you're referring to selling weapons to Iraq, the United States was WAAAYYY down the list (11th, in fact, less than 1%) of their primary weapons suppliers. Their primary weapons suppliers were the leftist governments of Russia, China, and France. And um, they hardly qualify as 'enemies' in peacetime...

They probably completely dismissed the people who WERE anti-Bush (or who at least were against his policies and decisions...and etics and principles...before they became fully anti-Bush), giving them no voice, no validation, no value.
How did they do this? Especially since the anti-Bush folks had a nationwide media apparatus that was entirely on their side, and they had full control of both houses of Congress and most Governorships? And I'm curious - did you have a problem with the Clinton's ethics? What is it that you find so wrong about Bush's ethics?

Code Pink (whatever that is), MoveOn, ANSWER, etc., I suspect may have contributed to the enhancement of that division, but only as a reflection of a division that was already in the works. Just exactly how does one-sided division work, anyway?
Um...You may want to do a bit of research into Code Pink there. A refelction of a division that is already in the works. I see. So if there's a group of folks who have differing views but who generally work together, and then I and a few other folks come in and start screeching about how evil the other group is, run protests, actively recruit more people from 'my' side to my 'cause', bombard the entire group with ads, articles, TV shows, placards, movies and music about how EVIL the other side is, I'm only a reflection of what is already there? That's not going to INCREASE that division at all. The actions of a large group of folks has no effect, it's merely a reflection. Um, since you don't know who Code Pink are, do you know who George Soros is?

I never said he did no good or didn't do anything right. But it's hard to acknowledge, much less give cudos to, the decent efforts of someone who is overshadowed by mistrust and who is perceived to be acting against the best interests of the people.
That perception was mostly on one side of the aisle, now isn't it? Most everyone else sees him for what he is - A man who's trying his best in the world's most difficult job, screwing up most of the time, but donig some good here and there. Giving credit where credit is due and blame where it's due as well. They DON'T call for his impeachment - every single freakin' day even after the last election - and refer to him as the epitome of evil. hang effigies of him, refer to him as a Nazi, and so on...

I can even find good things that Bill CLINTON did and I suspect HE was on the payroll of the freakin' Chinese government.

His principles were his own and he didn't provide much reason for many of us to trust his principles, especially for those who didn't share them. That's where he failed as a leader.
So he failed as a leader because he didn't please everyone? Which principles did you find offensive? I'm sure they'll be easy to list...

Do something - anything - to foster trust.
Okay, seriously here - Concrete time. Can you name any single thing that President Bush could POSSIBLY do that would foster trust in YOU, much less in some of the rabid folks in ANSWER, MoveOn, and so on? With people who see him as the personification of all evil in the world, that's just not going to happen.

Stand up as a representative of the people, and not just as an almighty leader of the mighty United States. I swear, every time he walked up to a podium, it appeared as though he was saying, "OMG, look at me - I'm the PRESIDENT!"
Boy did WE see him differently. He always looked freakin' GOOFY to me. One of my complaints about Bush was that he didn't LOOK presidential. He always looked lost and confused. There were very few instances where I thought he looked like he was Presidential. I have a feeling there's a perception involved here. You see him as an evil, gloating man and so that's how he comes across when you see him. I think you'd find very few folks who'd agree with your perception of his presence on the podium.

If he did anything to make the people feel involved in the process (whether they agreed or disagreed), he could have avoided a lot of opposition. There's a big difference between being "THE" president and being "YOUR" president. "Welcoming" is not a word I would use when describing the man.
Well, he DID have a VP who shot a lawyer in the face with a shotgun and got away with it - that's gotta count for SOMETHING!

OK. And how closely were those crystal-clear plans followed? How well did those plans work out? In my recollection, it was going to be quick. In and out - measured in weeks, tops. And what were the reasons for engaging? Did they turn out to be valid? Where ARE those "weapons of mass destruction?" In hindsight, is Congress happy?
They were followed entirely too well - that was part of what led to the problems in 2005. It wasn't supposed to be a quick in and out - it was a quick, heavy conquering and then a very light footprint (in the British model) to rebuild the joint over the long haul. Most folks were impressed that he was listening to the Brits instead of the Generals who were calling for more troops. The Generals turned out to be right. It blew up in our faces and Bush was much too slow reacting to that change. Fortunately, he DID appoint Petraus which won the war for us.

The reasons for engaging were quite valid and have held up over time; although you wouldn't know that from watching the media.
How many hundreds of them do they need to find? How many plans? How many components? How many folks testifying to the majority of them being transported to Syria? How many of them have to be used against American troops? *(shrugs)* The WMD were ONE reason, not THE reason.

Congress wouldn't be happy if every country in the Middle East suddenly adopted the US Constitution and applied for Statehood.

That means 48 Republican senators and 215 Republican congressmen (for a count of 263 Republicans vs. 111 Democrats) voted for it - nearly 2:1 heavy on the Republican side. And what about the citizens? Were they all convinced and on-board? Apparently not.
Well, a Supermajority in both houses definitely does NOT count as 'unilateral', especially with such large numbers of Democrats involved. You said 'Unilateral' not "unanimous". The Citizens were mostly on board at the time, if you'll recall - and remained so for some time despite a constant negative media blitz distorting every action and every fact coming out of Iraq. And we have never conducted wars based upon opinion polls. That's why we were a Representative Republic rather than a true Democracy. Well, now we're just a Tyranny, so polls will have even less effect. We'll do what the Great Leader says and of course, we'll love it! Or else.

Funny how when it comes to Bush winning the election, it was simply a majority of voters that called it, as if it was that clean and clear-cut, yet Obama's election was an "installment."
Well, during the Bush wins there weren't tens of millions of fraudulent donations to his candidacy, nor were there millions of fraudulent voter registrations by his organization, nor were tens of thousands of pro-Kerry/Gore military votes being thrown out by Republican Registrars, nor were hundreds of electronic voting machines identified as changing votes for Kerry/Gore to votes for Bush, nor were Conservative pundits laughing on-air about how they've rigged this election, nor did Bush reserve an entire stadium for his victory celebration MONTHS in advance of the election, nor did the Republicans control every branch of government from the Presidency down to the majority of Governorships. Had that been the case, I'd have said the same thing about Bush.

Since the last two elections were won by a few hundred votes in a couple of states, it seems very, very likely that the MILLIONS of fraudulent voter registrations and so on resulted in more than enough margin in a few critical states. Classic Democrat Machine corruption.

THAT is THE MOST entertaining story playing out on the Right Wing agenda, currently.
Actually, most of the Right-Wing sites I read are taking the same angle you are. I'm one of the few who is calling this the coup that it was. Everyone else seems content to pretend it was an election.

Bush's first term election was so close, it was barely a majority, and perhaps it was a majority of VOTERS (if you can trust the vote count, since he didn't have the popular vote), but I suspect it wasn't the majority of PEOPLE. I'm not sure how he won the second election. I'm still trying to figure that one out. Hmm. Perhaps it was an INSTALLMENT by the Right. Maybe that's why they recognize it in this election.
It was in no WAY a majority of the people. Not even close. We haven't had a President elected by a majority of the people for a while. Majority of the Registered Voters, but only rarely. See the above for why it wasn't an installment by the Right.

He united who he HAD to unite to push his agenda through - did he unite the people? Things fell apart because he made a bad decision. He obviously was either ill-prepared or ill-informed, since this "war" was supposed to be an in-and-out job. But once we were in, he had to finish the job to save face. And that really worked out well, don't you think?
If you look at the quotes I linked to in the previous quote, you'll note the large numbers of Democrats (shuch as the Clintons and Kerry) calling for us to invade Iraq - well before Bush asked for it. He didn't PUSH his agenda through it was the same agenda everyone wanted at the time. See the above for how it wasn't supposed to be in-and-out at all.

And yes, I think it DID work out really well. I'm happy to be going there tomorrow, in fact and looking forward to it. The Iraqis have made HUGE strides and are the ONLY functioning Arab democracy in the Middle East and one of the most prosperous countries in that region right now, and gaining ground every day. What's not to like?

What do you see as having gone so horribly wrong in Iraq anyway? We had a rough patch - caused by bad Bush decisions and bad advice - and we worked through it, resulting in a victory despite the best efforts of an awful lot of people who wanted us to lose and did everything they could to cause us to do so.

A true leader is elected because his principles, agendas and faith are shared by the majority of people - the people who ELECTED him.
Boy, we haven't had one of THOSE since Eisenhower. Maybe Kennedy. Well, I guess Regan counted.

Personally, I don't consider 51% or 52% a majority, since that means nearly half the population doesn't agree. Bush lead based on HIS principles, agendas and faith that were all his own, shared by some and rejected by others. He led by dragging half the people behind him kicking and screaming. So, no wonder so many people are kicking and screaming. Just what IS there to like about the guy?
You're going to redefine the word majority? So I guess you have the exact same feelings about Obama then as you could replace the word 'Bush' with 'Obama' in the above sentence and be spot on...

Typically, when a story seems so illogical that it borders on insanity, it's because someone got the story wrong. Who's asking anyone to ignore what?
You, and a large number of people on the Left - Your entire post is asking for us to do just that.

No, you cannot piss on people, scream, throw tantrums, insult people, then ask everyone to ignore it all. And as long as you see opposition as spoiled brats instead of as people who might actually have value, validity and merit in their position, then there will only ever be division.
And yet you have the exact same feelings about Bush...Who didn't behave NEARLY as badly as those who opposed him. Strange.

I guess since the Great Leader was INSTALLED and not ELECTED, he does not qualify for some support by the American citizens?
Not from anyone who loves the US Constitution. The funny part is that he might actually have WON a real election. They just weren't willing to take the chance. Had he BEEN elected, I'd support him. Sad fact is, he wasn't.

When Bush got elected for his first term, I at least gave him the benefit of the doubt and said, "maybe it won't be that bad." I'm giving the
And what is it that has been so bad? Winning a war in Iraq? Liberating 20 million people? *scratching head*

new guy the same consideration, only this time I'm saying, "surely, it won't be THAT bad." We'll see if this leader fails us or not - at least this one, going in, brings in inspiration and hope
I have NO idea why you see such hope or inspiration in this man. Where are you getting this from? His record? His associates? What has this man done that could POSSIBLY inspire you? He hasn't run so much as a lemonade stand, has been absent from almost every vote, has many long-standing criminal associations - the list is endless. What, other than a good stage presence - do you see as so hopeful and inspirational about this dude?

(whereas Bush scared the hell out of me the minute he announced he was running). Only time will tell if he is a Romulan infiltrator, or one of the good guys. Maybe you know better, but I'm pretty fuckin' far from convinced.
Dude, you know me. I do the research. This guy scares me so shitless that I VASTLY preferred Hillary CLINTON to him. That, alone, should tell you something.

Isn't that exactly the problem here? This country (and others) is NOT united in this war. What is a clean fight, anyway? It's difficult to be loyal to a leader who is perceived to not be loyal to the people.
And they should be. As I said above, they could be loyal opposition instead of active traitors. It's not hard.
Clean fight? Fight on the facts. Debate, discuss, behave like adults. We've had many Presidents who were percieved as being 'not a man of the people' and none of them got this sort of treatment.

"Which tall tales are those?"
As I mentioned, the good one right now is an unrealistic tale about how an African American man of questionable origin was installed into office. Now there's a story that is so illogical that it borders on insanity.
*shrugs* Again, I do the research. The nonsense about his questionable origin was settled long, long ago - Hawaii has the documents, end of story. Now, his installation, that's not quite so nuts. There are just too many pieces of evidence that this election was fixed to ignore. When I see black smoke coming out of the eaves, flickering orange lights behind the curtains, sooting all over the windows, and heat-wavers coming off the roof I start to suspect that the house is on fire, not that they've turned the heat up tonight.

"I'd like to see us all work together too - To throw out the Statist assholes who have taken over our country and restore a representative Constitutional Republic to government."
Sounds good to me.
Me too, but I'll tell you, the only way that's going to happen is unpleasant in the extreme.

"You had commented that we need to split the country in twain - the Coasts and the Red States."
Actaually, I meant just split it right down the geological center. It was all hypothetical anyway. :)
LOL! THAT would be interesting. Go East/West this time instead of North/South?

Orion
At 2/1/09 1:41 AM, Bill said…

"Boy did WE see him differently. He always looked freakin' GOOFY to me. One of my complaints about Bush was that he didn't LOOK presidential. He always looked lost and confused."
Wow, I obviously didn't make my point clear. I never said he looked presidential (and certainly never thought that). But he did look like the kid in the back of the classroom who was always bullied who suddenly found himself in a position of power, as if to say, "look at me now, punks! Don't fuck with me, 'cause I've got people who'll kick you in the groin for me now! heh heh heh. I'm the PRESIDENT! Let's see you top THAT!" He just never lost the goofy kid-in-the-back-of-the-classroom demeanor.
At 10/1/09 8:25 PM, Orion said…

I never saw a 'bully' image on him - Just the lost and confused look. All too often.

But you didn't answer the main question (although I've not found a SINGLE Obama supporter who ever COULD give a coherent and logical answer) - What is it about Obama that gives you such hope and faith in his upcoming reign?

Orion

Saturday, December 27, 2008

Get The Lead Out

9 Comments:

About Me

Previous Posts