JohnG@lt wrote:
Your hardon for Reagan is completely misguided. [...] I can go on and on and on if you want me to.
And where in the
hell did you imagine I even implied I had a
"Hardon for Reagan"?
ghettoperson wrote:
So how would you have fixed the economy, and why exactly do you believe Obama's economic advisors to be wrong?
Firstly, I'd listen to the available subject matter experts (like
Greenspan on economics, for one example),
especially when they're talking in their particular area of expertise, and warning that critical key factors are being ignored.
Secondly, the same error Bush Jr made, Obama is making - hiring people based more on doctrinal loyalty, and less on practical proven experience and knowlege.
Thirdly, I would
not be shoving a massive entitlement program onto the shoulders of the American taxpayers, in the middle of a recession. Rather, I would be taking a hard look at limiting governmental spending, reigning in wasteful programs, and focusing the money instead on neglected core infrastructure essentials that would have direct and measurable impact on improving our economy.
Transportation infrastructure,
real education programs, restarting some of our neglected industrial infrastructure, becoming more energy independent, etc...
ghettoperson wrote:
Like with with the rest of your points, you seem to be copying the Republicans in their strategy of 'Obama is wrong' on everything, but don't seem to be able to point out what the problem is with his plans nor have a better solution.
If you have me colored in as a GOP parrot, you are as ill-informed as any of the worst of Obama's advisors.
The problems with Obama are legion. Let me hit a few highlights;
- He speaks ill of his own people, to a foreign head of state, in a land where speaking ill of your own tribe is considered a huge lapse in moral character.
- He surrounds himself with loyalists, rather than proven subject matter experts
- He is seen internationally as an inept novice, and generally someone completely ill prepared to be the head of state for any nation, much less the United States of America.
- He seems more concerned with appearances, and less concerned with content.
- He is dangerously inexperienced to be the head of state.
ghettoperson wrote:
For most of the problems that the US has suffered whilst Obama has been in office, I can't say that I can really think of any better alternatives that he could have done, or that any other President would have done.
RDX-fX wrote:
Luckily, you're not running for President any time soon, then, eh?
ghettoperson wrote:
It's all very well saying "oh good job you're not running for President" but unfortunately smartass comments like that don't back up your argument.
Fine.
I'll explain it with more words and less humor.
I would hope that, out of 300 million people, we could find a chief executive with more depth of knowledge, more experience, more eloquence, and more creativity in solving difficult problems. Someone that would come up with solutions better than either you or I could. Same meaning as the shorter, more sarcastic quip.
Phrozenbot wrote:
The last part of my post was being sarcastic. If you look at everything you've highlighted our President in being incompetent (minus the "no clue how to interact with foreign heads of state"), you'll see that government has always been the suggested solution. Could it possibly be that the best government in some scenarios, is no government?
Not necessarily
no government, but a smarter, smaller, more measured and reasoned government.
My sarcastic line is
"We never had a Democracy, and we've given up our Republic in favor of a Bureaucracy"If by
'no government', you intend that in many situations, government drones should keep their porky little hands out of things to avoid screwing things up worse - then, yes, I'd agree with that assessment in
many situations.
The original article is
HERESome choice quotes;
Rolling Stone wrote:
Last fall, during the question-and-answer session following a speech he gave in London, McChrystal dismissed the counterterrorism strategy being advocated by Vice President Joe Biden as "shortsighted," saying it would lead to a state of "Chaos-istan." The remarks earned him a smackdown from the president himself, who summoned the general to a terse private meeting aboard Air Force One. The message to McChrystal seemed clear: Shut the fuck up, and keep a lower profile
Rolling Stone wrote:
Now, flipping through printout cards of his speech in Paris, McChrystal wonders aloud what Biden question he might get today, and how he should respond. "I never know what's going to pop out until I'm up there, that's the problem," he says.
Rolling Stone wrote:
Last fall, with his top general calling for more troops, Obama launched a three-month review to re-evaluate the strategy in Afghanistan. "I found that time painful," McChrystal tells me in one of several lengthy interviews. "I was selling an unsellable position."
Rolling Stone wrote:
Douglas Macgregor, a retired colonel and leading critic of counterinsurgency who attended West Point with McChrystal. "The idea that we are going to spend a trillion dollars to reshape the culture of the Islamic world is utter nonsense.
Rolling Stone wrote:
Politicians like McCain and Kerry, says another aide, "turn up, have a meeting with Karzai, criticize him at the airport press conference, then get back for the Sunday talk shows. Frankly, it's not very helpful." Only Hillary Clinton receives good reviews from McChrystal's inner circle. "Hillary had Stan's back during the strategic review," says an adviser. "She said, 'If Stan wants it, give him what he needs.' "
The more of the article I read, the more I respect Gen. McChrystal.
Though, with his apparent attitude of
'Make Mission, say what needs to be said,fuck politics, fuck 'nice-nice' I am amazed that the man ever made it past Colonel.
I saw nothing disloyal in anything directly attributable to McChrystal.
I did, however, see many instances of him calling things as he saw them. Plain, straightforward, and honest.
That is
exactly what you want in a General officer tasked with getting real results.
It is rare and fortunate to be able to find
any General officer that is more concerned with Mission than he is with Appearances.
But, alas, Obama's administration, towing the official party line, and nodding your head in polite agreement with every vapid ill-formed idea that the Obama Select thinks up is the key to longevity.
