Obama criticizes crusades

[StlVUFan]

I apologize, then, Stl; I thought you were because of statements like this.

Quote from: StlVUFan on February 20, 2015, 07:23:01 PM

    It's always been the stories of violent attempts to convert Muslims that has made it's impression on me

Ah.  Now I understand.  I believe I was referring to what I remember reading or hearing.  I should clarify: I don't know one way or the other whether those stories are true or not.  For all I know, they are.

But as someone on facebook kept hammering on, *that was ancient history*.  ISIS is modern.  I thought that was understood...  I had implied that it might have happened 1000 years ago or so.  I certainly didn't imply that it's happening now.

Anyway, I had forgotten all about that statement, which should tell you how much importance I was placing on my implication.

[78crusader]

Obama is simply the worst president we have ever had.  The deal he is bargaining with Iran -- the Iranians have reportedly said America is "desperate" for a deal -- is a debacle.  Read Charles Krauthammer's opinion on it today in the Washington Post.  He is giving away the farm to our enemy while giving the cold shoulder -- or worse -- to one of our strongest allies, Israel.  It is a disgrace. 

These are scary times, not only for our nation, but for the world.

Paul

[setshot]

I disagree. "W" will go down in history as one of our worst presidents. Book it!

[vu72]

I disagree. "W" will go down in history as one of our worst presidents. Book it!

Glad to see you are still with us setshot!  I was a little worried as you have been pretty quiet through our very successful season (so far).  In any event, what exactly do you think Mr. Obama has done that is good for our country?  We now face one of the biggest threat we have ever faced and still no policy or plan.  Then again we have Obamacare, the Safe Employment Act for hundreds of thousands of additional bureaucrats and added debt for our children.  You guys got whooped on last election and you are planning on running an old white lady for President, who needs to find a way to not be associated with Mr. Obama, even though she served on his Cabinet and oversaw something called Benghazi. And Obama is great because??  Please enlighten us!

[vu84v2]

What, per se, would you advise doing differently or additional in regards to ISIS/ISIL?  Ground troops?  More intense bombing with not worrying about civilians? Create a holy war?  There was an interesting segment on what Republicans have called for in dealing with ISIS (beyond their generic  comments that Obama is bad). What is ironic is that the specific things that the Republicans have called for are the things that Obama has done.

Affordable Care Act: I have problems with several parts of it, but I also recognize that 40 million people under age 65 did not have heallth insurance.  Now it is much lower. What solutions did the Republicans offer besides, "if Obama likes or promotes something, we must take the opposite position"?

Not sure what you are getting at by the Safe Employment Act.  If it is making it more difficult to fire poor performers (which it was already damn difficult during Bush and before), I am clearly against it (i.e. people need to perform to keep jobs). Indeed, I would argue that one of Obama's problems has been not improving the efficiency and effectiveness of government agencies. However, if it is protection for gays and other groups of people from workforce discrimination, I am all in favor of it.

In summary, I have problems with Obama's presidency, some of which have been from the requirement that all true Republicans must disagree with him and some of which has been from him not making tougher choices and and not promoting his ideas with specifics (rather than ideologies). He has not followed through on initiatives that promote personal responsibility. Additionally, Obama does not seem to be able to see economic reactions of society to his policies...and I am not really in favor of just grating work visas to millions of illegal immigrants (something Reagan did too). Furthermore, I am not thrilled with Hilary Clinton. But what Republican option does not follow a strategy of: (1) reduce taxes regardless of budget impacts (see what has happened with this method in several states including Kansas), (2) move the US towards being a god fearing christian nation, with laws and policies that are consistent with their own interpretation of christianity, (3) promote US exceptionalism without engaging in critical reflection on things that the US has not done well, as well as recognizing that exceptionalism hinders our country and the companies within it from working effectively with other countries (creating lost economic value), (4) every person not convicted of a felony should be able to own an arsenal, (5) have their own definition of freedom that excludes anyone who does not agree with them (is that really what freedom is?). I would have voted for Romney since he is a better executive than Obama, but I couldn't since Romeny would have had to accept parts of the narrow-minded conservative mantra.

[wh]

Here's the way I see Obama's rise to the Presidency. 

He starts as the perpetually offended and aggrieved, whiny employee you work with (every organization has them, trust me). Every day he rips on your company and how unfair they treat everyone.  The bosses are all stupid. Every edict is wrong and self-serving. If the company loses money it's because of terrible management.  If the company makes money they didn't give enough of the profits to the workers. They've rigged the system so we do all they work and the 1% at the top make all the money.  In the break room he tells everyone how all of your competitors are better than we are. At night he fills his mind with books written by rebellious people consumed with hate for your company and others like it.  He secretly meets with radical haters of companies. Every Sunday for 20 years, he takes his family to listen to a person consumed with hate rant about how your terrible your company is and how it deserves anything bad that comes it's way.

One time you and some of your co-workers who are proud of your company and are thankful to be a part of it try to challenge him on what you believe are totally unfair criticisms on his part.  He immediately interrupts you and indignantly says that the only reason you're challenging him is because he's African American and calls you all bigots.  Since that incident you and your friends don't talk to him and his friends anymore for fear of being labeled bigots, homophobes, islamophobes, anti-female, or generally insensitive. In your entire career you have never seen the workforce so polarized.  You wonder if your company is going to survive.   

Now, imagine what would happen if that same person that sowed all that discord suddenly became the president of your company?  And so we have the Presidency of Barack Obama.  As to your points of view, I've heard them all a thousand times over. So much so, that I don't even waste my time debating them. The situation is what it is until January 2017.  He's going to continue to teach America a lesson for its past sins and failures, continue to apologize to the world for our arrogance, continue to subvert the constitution through executive order, continue to run up unbelievable debt, and continue to ignore the biggest threat to mankind since Hitler and Nazi Germany.  Finally, his presidency will be over, someone will inherit an unbelievable mess, and start putting the pieces back together. 

I'm sure there are those who will read this and vehemently disagree with everything I've said.  That fine.  I'm entitled to my opinions, and you're entitled to yours and all opinions should be respected.  At least I think it still works that way.   

[vu72]

What, per se, would you advise doing differently or additional in regards to ISIS/ISIL?  Ground troops?  More intense bombing with not worrying about civilians? Create a holy war?  There was an interesting segment on what Republicans have called for in dealing with ISIS (beyond their generic  comments that Obama is bad). What is ironic is that the specific things that the Republicans have called for are the things that Obama has done.

Affordable Care Act: I have problems with several parts of it, but I also recognize that 40 million people under age 65 did not have heallth insurance.  Now it is much lower. What solutions did the Republicans offer besides, "if Obama likes or promotes something, we must take the opposite position"?

Not sure what you are getting at by the Safe Employment Act.  If it is making it more difficult to fire poor performers (which it was already damn difficult during Bush and before), I am clearly against it (i.e. people need to perform to keep jobs). Indeed, I would argue that one of Obama's problems has been not improving the efficiency and effectiveness of government agencies. However, if it is protection for gays and other groups of people from workforce discrimination, I am all in favor of it.

In summary, I have problems with Obama's presidency, some of which have been from the requirement that all true Republicans must disagree with him and some of which has been from him not making tougher choices and and not promoting his ideas with specifics (rather than ideologies). He has not followed through on initiatives that promote personal responsibility. Additionally, Obama does not seem to be able to see economic reactions of society to his policies...and I am not really in favor of just grating work visas to millions of illegal immigrants (something Reagan did too). Furthermore, I am not thrilled with Hilary Clinton. But what Republican option does not follow a strategy of: (1) reduce taxes regardless of budget impacts (see what has happened with this method in several states including Kansas), (2) move the US towards being a god fearing christian nation, with laws and policies that are consistent with their own interpretation of christianity, (3) promote US exceptionalism without engaging in critical reflection on things that the US has not done well, as well as recognizing that exceptionalism hinders our country and the companies within it from working effectively with other countries (creating lost economic value), (4) every person not convicted of a felony should be able to own an arsenal, (5) have their own definition of freedom that excludes anyone who does not agree with them (is that really what freedom is?). I would have voted for Romney since he is a better executive than Obama, but I couldn't since Romeny would have had to accept parts of the narrow-minded conservative mantra.

Lots of good questions.  Let me try to address them one at a time.  Let me first add a preamble to address Mr. Obama in general.  His first problem is/was his total lack of experience doing anything.  He was a very junior senator from Illinois where he was elected because of his far left positions, bordering on communism. Given his total lack of experience he is thrust into the most challenging job in the entire world.  I might as well have been elected to be President.  I am older and actually have run a couple of small businesses so much more qualified. 

Mr. Obama announced what he was going to do when elected and they included ending the wars.  Here he told our enemies when we were leaving.  If Bryce coached in a similar fashion he might tell our opponent how we were going to defend their key guy--several days before the game. Or, he might tell their coach that one of our guys has a bad ankle thus giving the opposition the easier target on whom to focus.  He pulled troops out against military advice.  We now know what happened by setting a time table and leaving the Iraqis before they were anywhere close to being ready to govern on their own.  Thousands of our troops died and much of the gains from those sacrifices are now controlled by ISIS.

So, now on to what to do with ISIS.  Again, in a basketball sense, by making sure our enemies know that we in no way, ever, will commit ground troups, he telegraphed our offense.  Kinda like Bryce telling Kampe that we will NEVER shoot a three.  Ya think old Kampe might sag into the middle on defense, just a little bit?

The answer to ISIS is, no doubt, very complicated.  I'm not trying to begin to tell you what that answer should look like.  One thing we certainly can do is not call the enemy the "JV" squad and start to be the leader the free world has come to expect--at least until the last several years.  Get the Middle East leaders together and LEAD, not follow, hoping that nothing bad will happen in our country.  Ya know, "as long as that Hitler guy doesn't bother us, we don't have a dog in the fight"

Let me next address the Affordable Care Act.  Here is the problem. It will be run by government officials.  Look, Republicans don't want people to starve, be sick or die in the streets.  We don't point fingers and say, " it's your own darn fault, if you hadn't made bad mistakes you could have been as successful as me"  "You are on your own".  No, that's not what Republicans think or want.  I am a Christian as are many Democrats. As Christians we are called to help those less fortunate.  The question is, how do we do that while also following the Bible's teaching to not waste our talents.  It can be summed up by comparing the Post Office to UPS or FEDEX.  They are basicly in the same business. UPS and FEDEX run at a profit and the Post Office wastes billions of our tax dollars.

Try to name one government program that looks anything like it was envisioned when the bill was signed into law.  There is one constant.  All of the programs are gigantically bigger than when they were put into place, cost WAY more and have led to a sense of entitlement (thus the name) which leads to folks who are able to work, as an example, just sitting around because they have enough to get by on what the government is giving them. The correct answer is not more government, it is more jobs. Things like the new pipeline.  It would create thousands of new jobs and new tax revenue.  It isn't like we are going to endanger the environment when we already have thousands of miles of these thing in existence and doing just fine, thank you, and run by the private sector.

The better way to solve the healthcare problems is again, via the private sector.  Republicans were and are all over eliminating preexisting conditions as an example.  They also are for removing the restrictions on crossing state lines by insurers, thus creating more and better competition by existing medical insurance providers, versus putting the government in a business they know nothing about and who have proven consistently that they are terrible at running everything.

Finally, my mention of the Safe Employment Act was a joke.   My point in the joke was to point out what will and has happened when government gets involved in trying to expand or start another program.  It creates thousands or hundreds of thousands of jobs, with great benefits, which gives folks security regardless of performance. Thus, the "Safe Employment Act".  Just think back to my Post Office example.  If UPS or FEDEX hired people and never could fire them, would these companies still be in business?  I think we all know the answer to that question.

[valporun]

I was always of the opinion that the Affordable Care Act was good in principle, but in execution, it came before getting people working again. If more jobs had been created, before handing out health care insurance like fun size candy bars on Halloween night, more people would have been working in jobs where they potentially could have afforded to live better lives, and being able to afford some form of health care. Health care reform was great in principle, but in execution, as John Mackay said of his Tampa Bay Buccaneers, "I'm all for it", oh wait, in this case I'd step back 50 yards and punt because the government leaders we elected NEVER read the bill as printed. I got more of the idea that they just read the bullet points from the researchers knowing that if they didn't show up for the vote informed in some way, that President Obama might ramrod an executiver order down their throats.

It just seems that President Obama led by how much money was coming in for his next campaign, rather than by what the people he's supposed to represent needed. I know for myself, I want people working some kind of job, before getting health insurance handed to them like a pamphlet that no one understands the content or context of.

[vu84v2]

My thoughts on the rebuttals to my post:

-We likely agree on some things and disagree on others. On the areas we partially or completely disagree, my guess is that you form your opinions intelligently and with caring thought (for the country, etc.)
-I lived in Illinois during Obama"s "rise". He was extremely effective at communicating a vision despite lack of detail (and perhaps a lack of understanding of the complexities and tradeoffs). Couple this with a lack of executive experience and you have problems.
-I do not think that Obama hates the U.S. He is critical of some parts of it and people don't like that. If you reframe criticism as "where can we improve?", isn't it more acceptable. I don't agree with how he frames some of his criticism, but I do feel that critical assessment is important for leadership.
-Obama may have the luckiest election history ever. He runs for senate in Illinois. A legitimate candidate on the Republican side has to step down due to a scandal involving his ex-wife (we could argue whether one is not qualified due to such things, but the political reality is that you cannot sustain such things). Alan Keyes, who was not even from Illinois and is wildly unqualified, steps in to run on the Republican side and has little or no backing or funding. Any of us could have beaten Alan Keyes. Then when he runs for President, he faces a legitimate opponent in McCain - who then has a completely unqualified and irrational person named as his running mate.
-The Jeremiah Wright thing has always been a dilemma for me. He did indeed say those things and was rightly criticized and subsequently marginalized. But my church had many people visit that church with him preaching over many years and no one ever saw that (they would have stopped immediately otherwise). Any evidence that I have from that indicates that he was not ranting against the US for twenty years and that it was a more recent thing. Furthermore, my current church (all are same denomination) is critical of policies against human rights and social justice. I agree with some positions and not with some other positions, but I don't feel that such discussion is anti-American.
-I generally agree that government run programs are inherently inefficient. I should caution, however, that the USPS is severely hampered by government requirements of six day per week delivery, fixed prices on various services, etc. Fedex and UPS could not be profitable under those constraints. I would then ask, how government run is the Affordable Care Act? They setup a website that has linkages to buy policies from private insurance companies. Lots of problems with rolling this program out (despite it being far less complicated than other options) plus other problems with trying to fund it on the backs of the young, healthy and middle class, but you also have to ask whether ideas like increased competition from removing state boundaries is only going to increase value for people that the health insurance companies want to insure. You could very well still end up with 30-40 million uninsured.
-I agree that government is grossly inefficient. Dealing with this is a failure of the Obama Presidency, but is frankly a failure of the past several administrations.
-Totally agree with the lunacy of passing bills without knowing what is in them.
-ISIS: Your "lead the free world" sounds good, but not realistic. Are leaders in the Middle East and Europe going to get support from following a US president?  You need a coalition of countries each with the same objective and similar basic values (non-religious), and the leaders of each need to lead in their own way. Sounds hard and is damn hard, but expecting any US President to lead a bunch of other countries is unrealistic. U.S. - Jordan relationship is probably the model that works best.
-Signaling that the US would leave Iraq and Afghanistan: probably a bad move.
-Polarization of American society. While liberals due indeed deserve some blame for this, conservatives certainly deserve blame here too. What would happen to a Republican senator or congressman who decided to work with Obama on something, even if it offered a lot of potential good?  They would be ridiculed by conservative media and other congressional Republicans. I am a moderate and it often feels like conservatives hate people like me because I don't "tick all the boxes".
-I do agree that Christians, and people of other faiths, place great value in helping other people. I see examples of this all the time. I do think, however, that faith organizations will always lack the resources to help even a simple majority of the population.

[StlVUFan]

-The Jeremiah Wright thing has always been a dilemma for me. He did indeed say those things and was rightly criticized and subsequently marginalized. But my church had many people visit that church with him preaching over many years and no one ever saw that (they would have stopped immediately otherwise). Any evidence that I have from that indicates that he was not ranting against the US for twenty years and that it was a more recent thing. Furthermore, my current church (all are same denomination) is critical of policies against human rights and social justice. I agree with some positions and not with some other positions, but I don't feel that such discussion is anti-American.

From what I heard of his critique at the time (and I may not have heard all of it), I didn't have a single problem with his criticisms.  It took a conversation with a friend of mine who happens to teach religion at VU and write a weekly column for the Post-Tribune for me to understand what separates Jeremiah Wright from his biblical namesake: a true prophet does not derive *joy* from harpooning his otherwise legitimate targets.  A true prophet wishes he could be delivering an upbeat message instead of the downer he's saddled with, and Jeremiah Wright seemed to this friend to derive pleasure from harpooning the USA (the german word, which I'm sure I'm going to misspell: schadenfreude).

[LaPorteAveApostle]

It took a conversation with a friend of mine who happens to teach religion at VU and write a weekly column for the Post-Tribune for me to understand

THIS EXPLAINS SO MUCH ABOUT YOU

(the german word, which I'm sure I'm going to misspell: schadenfreude)

Actually perfect...just capitalize the first letter (because German noun).

Anyone else notice how this thread has morphed all the way from "Obama Criticizes Crusades" to "Crusaders Criticize Obama"?

[wh]

It took a conversation with a friend of mine who happens to teach religion at VU and write a weekly column for the Post-Tribune for me to understand

THIS EXPLAINS SO MUCH ABOUT YOU

(the german word, which I'm sure I'm going to misspell: schadenfreude)

Actually perfect...just capitalize the first letter (because German noun).

Anyone else notice how this thread has morphed all the way from "Obama Criticizes Crusades" to "Crusaders Criticize Obama"?

Very true! 

Count me surprised that this thread has lasted this long without blowing apart.   

[bbtds]

Count me surprised that this thread has lasted this long without blowing apart.   

Now officially blown apart.

[LaPorteAveApostle]

Now officially blown apart.

Nope...but it is...now:

[historyman]

Now officially blown apart.

Nope...but it is...now:

I think I get it.

Is that Napoleon Blown-apart?

[LaPorteAveApostle]

Half right--Linoleum Blownapart.

[historyman]

Half right--Linoleum Blownapart.

Probably what Lumber Liquidators should do their linoleum.

[LaPorteAveApostle]

https://www.facebook.com/ewtnonline/photos/a.157114462581.116591.34701792581/10152785504012582/?type=1