Island Dog Island Dog

10 Reasons Why Obama is in Meltdown

10 Reasons Why Obama is in Meltdown

This is a great article.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100050412/the-stunning-decline-of-barack-obama-10-key-reasons-why-the-obama-presidency-is-in-meltdown/

“The last few weeks have been a nightmare for President Obama, in a summer of discontent in the United States which has deeply unsettled the ruling liberal elites, so much so that even the Left has begun to turn against the White House. While the anti-establishment Tea Party movement has gained significant ground and is now a rising and powerful political force to be reckoned with, many of the president’s own supporters as well as independents are rapidly losing faith in Barack Obama, with open warfare breaking out between the White House and the left-wing of the Democratic Party. While conservatism in America grows stronger by the day, the forces of liberalism are growing increasingly weaker and divided.”

14,961 views 44 replies
Reply #26 Top

Guy, Reagan belongs with them. They are a list of real-world presidents pre-George W. Bush. I am not saying they are the same, just that they all fit into the general type of normal candidate people will want after Obama. Whatever his shortcomings, Bill Clinton knew what was going on in the world.
End of quote

Know what was going on in the world?  I would say that with the exception of Carter and Obama, all did.  That is hardly a classification for a president.  And you make a critical error that most foreigners do.  The American people do  not care a whit about how a president perceives or is perceived by the rest of the world.  They vote domestic, even though he can do little more than jaw bone.

The problem I have with your grouping is that Reagan was principled.  The others were not.  Even if I was a lefty and loved Bill Clinton, the one thing that is clear is he was a smart opportunist, not a principled leader.  Bush 41 was the same way (although not as smart as Clinton).  The left loves to say Reagan was not smart.  I think he was smarter than most of them, but I will concede he was not the sharpest knife in the drawer.  But he was principled and knew how to lead (the problem with being super smart is that it makes you a terrible leader).

The propagated myth that Obama is super smart continues to abound, even when all evidence points to the fact he is not even smart.  But that is the wishful thinking of the left, egged on by the media.  Of all the presidents in my life time, Obama may be the stupidest.  LBJ is running close to him in that field, so only time will tell which one takes the cake.

Reply #27 Top

Leauki, gay marriage is not that big of an issue. Its only made to seem like a big issue. Probably less than 10% of the population is gay and that's a very liberal number (I've read that number some where).
End of quote

It is a myth perpetuated by the gay lobby.  I would say that the 10% are the active participants in organizations like GLBT, but not all of them are gay. (in other words, 10% of the population will vote on the issue as primary during normal times).

The actual (and more scientifically derived) estimate of the gay population percentage is about 4%.

Nitro, you forgot the border up there which falls under immigration mostly illegal immigration. Unless you think it'll be resolved by 2012.
End of quote

Obama and his blackmail have made it an issue that will turn a lot of people out of office this year.  However I do not think it will be a big issue in 12 because neither party wants to do anything about it.  If something is to be done, 1 of 2 things will have to happen.

1. A 3rd party gets serious

2. la Raza goes on the war path and causes a lot of death and destruction.

Reply #28 Top

Quoting Dr, reply 27

Leauki, gay marriage is not that big of an issue. Its only made to seem like a big issue. Probably less than 10% of the population is gay and that's a very liberal number (I've read that number some where).
It is a myth perpetuated by the gay lobby.  I would say that the 10% are the active participants in organizations like GLBT, but not all of them are gay. (in other words, 10% of the population will vote on the issue as primary during normal times).
End of Dr's quote

I'm not sure if you were disagree or conferring here.  My point was and is that its people who are the most vocal and since the media caters at their functions this gives the perception that its only that mean angry bigot christians that are against this.  This is also why the news make sures to cover what Westboro Baptist is doing because it plays this part up. The 10% was just a liberal estimate, the 4% to 6% is where most feel the Gay population is.  The whole thing is a political stunt for people are equating that this is some how a civil rights thing and it is not a civil rights.

I'm not against gay unions.  I'm against the term marriage being used.  On a further note is that if you look at Babylon, Rome, and Greek civilizations the down fall started not by someone invading but internally and internally with moral decay.   This is why I am somewhat against it.

Quoting Dr, reply 27


Nitro, you forgot the border up there which falls under immigration mostly illegal immigration. Unless you think it'll be resolved by 2012.
Obama and his blackmail have made it an issue that will turn a lot of people out of office this year.  However I do not think it will be a big issue in 12 because neither party wants to do anything about it.  If something is to be done, 1 of 2 things will have to happen.

1. A 3rd party gets serious

2. la Raza goes on the war path and causes a lot of death and destruction.
End of Dr's quote

I think it'll be a combination of one and two.  Past behavior predicts future.  If you look at the U.S. history, our behavior has generally been reactiontory (is that a word?).    A Mexican mayor just got kidnapped and probably will be killed.  Eventually, a U.S. elected offical will have the same fate.  Once this happens, that is when the U.S. will finally do something.  Now the question is will we do something at the first situation or wait till its someone of high importance.

The States is going to need someone that is a leader.  An individual who doesn't pander to everyone (Leauki, I'm not talking at about a ponce here ;-) or caters to whatever is the most recent trend.

Reply #29 Top

On a further note is that if you look at Babylon, Rome, and Greek civilizations the down fall started not by someone invading but internally and internally with moral decay.   This is why I am somewhat against it.

End of quote

I'm not sure why anything gay is "moral decay".

However, I find your examples weird.

Babylon fell not because of moral decay but because the Persians invaded and took it.

The Roman Empire fell first in the west, while the "moral decay" could be found in the decadent and rich eastern half, which survived for another 1000 years.

I don't know when Greek civilisation fell. But I can come up with three possibilities.

One was when Philip and Alexander of Makecon made the Greek world into a Makedonian-led Greek world. However, at that time the Macedonians revered Greek culture and wanted to be accepted as fellow Greeks. They also spread Greek (and not Macedonian) culture towards the east.

The second was when the Macodonian Greek empire(s) fell to the Sassanids.

And the third was when the Byzantinian Empire and ultimately Byzantium fell to the Muslims, first the Arabs and then the Turks.

Not sure how moral decay contributed to Greece's fall. In fact I find it difficult to imagine how one could possibly define how exactly "moral decay" shows in a society that is based on slavery, pedophilia and polytheism. Which moral system did "decay" and how could it go any worse?

 

Reply #30 Top

Know what was going on in the world?  I would say that with the exception of Carter and Obama, all did.  That is hardly a classification for a president.  And you make a critical error that most foreigners do.  The American people do  not care a whit about how a president perceives or is perceived by the rest of the world.  They vote domestic, even though he can do little more than jaw bone.

End of quote

I didn't say anything about how the president is perceived by the rest of the world.

And I disagree. I think that knowing what is going in the world is an excellent classification for a president.

 

Reply #31 Top

The propagated myth that Obama is super smart continues to abound, even when all evidence points to the fact he is not even smart. But that is the wishful thinking of the left, egged on by the media.
End of quote

If ever there was a clear (and recent) example of this, it is with the proposed mosque near ground zero in New York. The WH released a statement that this matter should be handled locally. It was a smart move, after all does the president have to comment on every event that occurs in the US. Anyway, Obama, in his "wisdom" threw that out the window and stuck his nose in on a Friday night while speaking to a group of Muslims. Totally un-necessary (since nobody is denying the right, just questioning the morality). Does this sound like the actions of a smart man?

Just because this guy can read a tele-prompter, and doesn't have a southern accent, the far left label him smart. DG, you're right this is the dimmest "genius" I've ever seen. ...and he does the same thing over and over. In his own words, he "acted stupidly".

Reply #32 Top

I'm not sure if you were disagree or conferring here.
End of quote

Conferring mostly.  I think we are saying the same things, but with different slants.

If you look at the U.S. history, our behavior has generally been reactiontory (is that a word?).
End of quote

Reactionary is.  And I agree. We rarely start, but usually finish.

Eventually, a U.S. elected offical will have the same fate. Once this happens, that is when the U.S. will finally do something.
End of quote

I agree.  But if a 3rd party - running on that platform, becomes a spoiler, it will also move one side or the other (probably republicans) to actually put some muscle behind their talk.

The drug cartels already have hits out on a couple of sheriffs in AZ.  If any of them succeed, that may be the impetus that moves the issue onto the front burner as well/

 

Reply #33 Top

And I disagree. I think that knowing what is going in the world is an excellent classification for a president.
End of quote

requirement for a good president?  yes. Classification?  no.  Obama is one that knew nothing, knows nothing, and is determined to remain that way.  Carter was idealistic, but hardly world knowledgeable.  The rest may not have been when elected, but they did have one thing on those 2.  Advisers who were.

The reality is that most presidents are world knowledge poor.  What makes a good one different from a bad one is who they pick to help them learn on the job.

Reply #34 Top

Just because this guy can read a tele-prompter, and doesn't have a southern accent, the far left label him smart. DG, you're right this is the dimmest "genius" I've ever seen. ...and he does the same thing over and over. In his own words, he "acted stupidly".
End of quote

That will be his legacy.  His mangled use of the English language that was not scripted on a Teleprompter - He acted stupidly

Reply #35 Top

Quoting Leauki, reply 29


On a further note is that if you look at Babylon, Rome, and Greek civilizations the down fall started not by someone invading but internally and internally with moral decay.   This is why I am somewhat against it.

I'm not sure why anything gay is "moral decay".

However, I find your examples weird.

Babylon fell not because of moral decay but because the Persians invaded and took it.

The Roman Empire fell first in the west, while the "moral decay" could be found in the decadent and rich eastern half, which survived for another 1000 years.

I don't know when Greek civilisation fell. But I can come up with three possibilities.

One was when Philip and Alexander of Makecon made the Greek world into a Makedonian-led Greek world. However, at that time the Macedonians revered Greek culture and wanted to be accepted as fellow Greeks. They also spread Greek (and not Macedonian) culture towards the east.

The second was when the Macodonian Greek empire(s) fell to the Sassanids.

And the third was when the Byzantinian Empire and ultimately Byzantium fell to the Muslims, first the Arabs and then the Turks.

Not sure how moral decay contributed to Greece's fall. In fact I find it difficult to imagine how one could possibly define how exactly "moral decay" shows in a society that is based on slavery, pedophilia and polytheism. Which moral system did "decay" and how could it go any worse?

 
End of Leauki's quote

First, let me clarify.  I not just saying that homosexuality is going to cause the decline.  For Babylonian Empire, there was a seismic shift in in the flow of the Euphrates which cause several key northern cities to be completely abandoned.  In Twilight of a Great Civilization, shows the influx of these cities to other cities caused there to be individualistic, most of these people were trying to get back to the lifestyles they were accustomed to, which caused a decay in values because they no longer cared about the fellow citizen and were going to back at whatever means possible.  Most of these people were trying to get back to the lifestyle that they were accustomed to back in their home cities that they abandoned.  This shift in attitude and shift in northern cities caused the Babylonian empire to weaken.

Edward Gibbon (The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire), Pitirim Sorokin (Crisis of our age, Social and Cultural Dynamics, Power and Morality), and J.D. Unwin (Hopousia: The Sexual and Economic Foundations of a New Society), each show a massive decline and correlative pattern of family in Roman empire (the latter three show it in the ancient Greece).  Each go into the decay of the family and the sexual practices.  This caused a decay not just in the family unit but in values as well.  Causing internal strife. 

Quoting Leauki, reply 29



Not sure how moral decay contributed to Greece's fall. In fact I find it difficult to imagine how one could possibly define how exactly "moral decay" shows in a society that is based on slavery, pedophilia and polytheism. Which moral system did "decay" and how could it go any worse?

 
End of Leauki's quote

There have been a lot of studies that show that pedophilics don't wake up and decide to have sex with little kids.  These studies have shown that they have been exposued to hardcore porn at a young age.  Eventually want that sexual release at any cost and are drawn to the innocence and virgin that a child has.  Man's eyes are bigger than his stomach in other words people crave more than what they actually need.  Your point goes well with my following statement:

Since history has a tendancy to repeat itself, societies that have had an anything goes attitude (these three societies exhibited this) causes everything to go.

Sorry ID, didn't mean to get off the topic.  I shouldn't have brought it up.

 

Quoting Dr, reply 32

I'm not sure if you were disagree or conferring here.
Conferring mostly.  I think we are saying the same things, but with different slants.


If you look at the U.S. history, our behavior has generally been reactiontory (is that a word?).
Reactionary is.  And I agree. We rarely start, but usually finish.


Eventually, a U.S. elected offical will have the same fate. Once this happens, that is when the U.S. will finally do something.
I agree.  But if a 3rd party - running on that platform, becomes a spoiler, it will also move one side or the other (probably republicans) to actually put some muscle behind their talk.

The drug cartels already have hits out on a couple of sheriffs in AZ.  If any of them succeed, that may be the impetus that moves the issue onto the front burner as well/

 
End of Dr's quote

I figured you were conferring.  I don't think a sheriff being taken out would do this unless a lot of sheriffs are being gunned.  Last week, several border guards got shot and I think one was killed.

Quoting Dr, reply 33

The rest may not have been when elected, but they did have one thing on those 2.  Advisers who were.

The reality is that most presidents are world knowledge poor.  What makes a good one different from a bad one is who they pick to help them learn on the job.
End of Dr's quote

Presidents aren't expected to know everything but they are expected to hire people that do.  Its hard to be a politician and to be world knowledgeable.  You've got your own constituents to worry about, then how to escape paying taxes, while fooling around with several people on the side, making sure that you're back in DC in time to vote for your own pay raise, and every once in a while throw the bone to the media.

 

Reply #36 Top

First, let me clarify. I not just saying that homosexuality is going to cause the decline.
End of quote

Homosexuality is not the cause, but a symptom.  Interesting theory.

I figured you were conferring. I don't think a sheriff being taken out would do this unless a lot of sheriffs are being gunned. Last week, several border guards got shot and I think one was killed.
End of quote

Normally I would agree - but the situation in AZ has become so politicized, the gunning down of a Sheriff (who is elected, unlike a border agent who is just a working guy) would be a match on the powder keg.  Under any other circumstances (say a Sheriff in SC or someplace away from the center of things), I agree that it would not cause a galvanization of opinion.

Reply #37 Top

Homosexuality is not the cause, but a symptom.  Interesting theory.

End of quote

It might be considered a symptom in as much as tolerance is a symptom of a society that has lost its principles.

Tolerance is a good thing. But it's easy being tolerant in a society that doesn't believe in principles. Hence the more unprincipled a society is, the easier it is to be tolerant. And the easier it is to be tolerant, the more tolerant people will there be. And the more tolerant people there are, the more open will people be about their sexuality.

The actual "amount" of homosexuality in society has not changed at all. People just aren't afraid to talk about it any more.

It's like children playing Baseball on a field where your house once stood. Children playing on a field is not a bad thing and it's not the cause of the destruction of your house but it is a symptom of the destruction of your house. Trying to defend your house by targeting the right of children to play Baseball is likely to be perceived as moronic by your more intelligent neighbours. You are fighting the symptoms, not the disease.

Society should be both principled and tolerant even though being one makes the other more difficult and vice versa. But for this to happen conservatives have to defend their principles and not attack tolerance and liberals have to defend tolerance and not attack principles.

This is not what is currently happening.

People I consider weak are those who are as principled or tolerant as everybody else. It is easy to be tolerant when it is considered wrong to be intolerant and it is easy to be principled when society doesn't allow one not to be. And these are the two goals. Conservatives want a society in which people are made to be principled and liberals want a society in which people are made to be tolerant.

As for US President, I support Lieutenant Colonel Allen West.

He is currently a candidate for Congress as a Repuplican in Florida, running against Democrat Ron Klein. I have nothing against Ron Klein, who is a decent man and competent politician and whom I rather want to see in Congress too. West is currently leading by a point or two and the district is over 95% "white" and Colonel West is "black", showing that "race" doesn't appear to be an issue for "white" Republican voters.

He has a master's in "political science" which I usually hold against people, but he also has a Master of Military Arts in military history and I am a big fan of military history which I consider one of the most important subjects anyone can study and everyone should know about.

Colonel West has served in two wars and as a civilian adviser in a third.

He might become the first descendant of slaves to become President of the US! I think that would send an important signal of how much the US have changed and it would be fitting that he be a Republican.

And for those to whom skin colour is really important, note that Obama's mother was white and he is thus as white as he is black. With Colonel West in the White House, Obama would transform from first black President into last white President. The symbolism would be most excellent. :-)

 

Reply #38 Top

As for US President, I support Lieutenant Colonel Allen West.
End of quote

 I like the way this guy speaks too, but president? I believe that is a bit premature. I'm really tired of the "man/or woman of the minute" being held up as the solution without having produced many tangible results. I believe the current president is a prime example of that folly. If Col. West can preform consistently as well as he speaks, I'd back him 100% in a heartbeat, but not because he is the "great black hope". That's exactly the wonder kid mentality we need to get away from, no matter what the color of the person.

Reply #39 Top

I like the way this guy speaks too, but president?

End of quote

I consider a military career good experience for politics. It's as good as having served as a senator for 20 years and better.

The current President had a background as a community organiser before he became a real politician. I don't count that. But a military career is different.

If he can follow and give orders under fire, he has enough experience for the White House. It has nothing to do with the "great black hope".

 

Reply #40 Top

I like the way this guy speaks too, but president? I believe that is a bit premature.
End of quote

Why?  in 2012 he will have more experience than Obama did.

Reply #41 Top

I consider a military career good experience for politics. It's as good as having served as a senator for 20 years and better.
End of quote

I would agree with that to a point, but still no pass from me. If I had served with the man, maybe I'd feel different, but I'm looking at him like any other person would. I've seen plenty of officers in the military I wouldn't trust to supervise cleaning the floor, let alone be president. For example: At the Pentagon Colonels fetch coffee for the generals. Plenty of politics there little opportunity to shine. As I said, I like this guy, but he needs to prove himself in a civilian capacity first.

The community organizer fool the US once, I would hate any newcomer to do it again, no matter their non-political background. Just how I feel about it.

Reply #42 Top

Why? in 2012 he will have more experience than Obama did.
End of quote

DG you know how to set a low bar! I'm seen kids in McDonald's with more leadership qualities. ;)

Reply #43 Top

Quoting Nitro, reply 42

Why? in 2012 he will have more experience than Obama did.
DG you know how to set a low bar! I'm seen kids in McDonald's with more leadership qualities.
End of Nitro's quote

Why insult McDonald employees?  They at least have an HONEST job.

Reply #44 Top

Why insult McDonald employees? They at least have an HONEST job.
End of quote

Oh don't misunderstand me, it was a compliment. If an incompetent (even one with a wonderful personality) can be elected to the presidency, imagine what a young, competent McDonald's worker can aspire to? The world is their oyster.