It's a bit early for Obama to be a "lame duck President," but clearly that's his situation now.

He's failing to lead. His most recent appointees (Hagel and Kerry) seem to bumble along. The current "solution" to the WMD situatiion in Syria seems to have been a Kerry brainfart which has put Vladimir Putin in charge of American foreign policy.

He seems insular, seems to want to go on his own without interfacing with Congress, even members of his own party.

He seems lost. I almost wonder if he's starting to talk to the paintings of past Presidents, seeking their advice much as Nixon is alleged to have done.

I'm starting to wish the choice had been between Hillary Clinton and John McCain/Mitt Romney. I can't see her in the situation Obama is in.

I was proud that we elected a black President, and in no way will I vote for a Republican for President without a fundamental transformation of their philosophy, but I must say I'm depressed.

Anyone else with me?

Tags: John, McCain, Mitt, Obama, President, Romney

Views: 1122

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Arch ! Your favorite !

If the government't  of the United States could somehow make the transition from world policeman to lets take care of ourselves, we would be a lot better off.

The President painted himself into a corner when he called for a congressional vote.  He is now in the position of not getting approval and yet going ahead with the strikes.  A no win situation in either case.

He has pretty much ceded leadership to Putin in the matter.  Putin comes across as the voice of reason and the president wanting to bomb Syria come hell or high water.  Putin as the voice of reason is probably a laugher.  I know that I don't trust him.

If the government't  of the United States could somehow make the transition from world policeman to lets take care of ourselves, we would be a lot better off.

Would we? Are you so sure? American isolationism prior to WWII meant a late entry into a war that was far harder to win. What evidence do you have that a return to isolationism now wouldn't turn out just as badly, or worse?

Agreed. I wish more people would see that side of the argument. If the European nations would have banded together as soon as Hitler took Czech, things could have been vastly different. It's a good thing we had FDR at that time who realized we needed to do something rather than sit back and watch. President Roosevelt persuaded Congress to repeal the arms embargoes of the Neutrality Acts and worked to establish loop-holes in them to get supplies to our European allies.

The younger people are, the less they seem to be aware that not doing anything has consequences, too. Eventually, something you managed to stay out of draws you in later and at a far greater cost.

Yes, fighting terrorism does help the terrorists get new recruits. However, do we really believe that if we don't fight them they're going to adopt a "live and let live" attitude toward a West they characterize as The Great Satan? 

...a West they characterize as The Great Satan?

...a West, especially an England and an America, whose oil-driven Middle Eastern foreign policies have earned the title The Great Satan?

C'mon, Unseen, give us a bit more of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

But do feel free to add enough metaphor to keep us awake long enough to read it.

I don't know about the UK but the US doesn't need Middle Eastern oil and actually doesn't use as much of it as people seem to think.

How much do people seem to think?

Most people seem to think it's all coming from there. Mexico, Canada and South America account for for than half. The Middle East is about 20% with the majority (at least half) of that coming from Saudi Arabia.

U, I have for months not understood your need to dispute, without evidence, so many points raised on T/A discussions. I was glad I wasn't your only target.

A few days ago I saw these words -- the narcissism of unimportant disputes -- and right away thought of you.

The thought didn't support a conclusion but it still brings me smiles.

I generally have always made sure the other side, particularly if it's unpopular, gets a strong defense. Simple as that. An education in philosophy gave me strong critical thinking tools.

If anything is more dangerous to reaching a false conclusion than starting without data or with false data, it's a bunch of people who agree on something, because at that point rational consideration almost always stops dead in its tracks.

U, you mounted a too-hasty defense.

...a bunch of people who agree on something, because at that point rational consideration almost always stops dead in its tracks.

Your defense is too hasty because your bunch of people is on its face a pejorative. Your pejorative is unwarranted because you nowhere allow that the people might be well-informed and might have reached a valid conclusion.

You will more likely find ill-informed people who don't reason to valid conclusions on evangelical websites.

Your defense is too hasty for another reason too.

An education in philosophy gave me strong critical thinking tools.

Your education in philosophy either omitted a caution or you do not remember that caution: That which can be asserted without evidence may be denied without evidence.

Tell us a reason we can believe.

RSS

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service