Does President Obama play too much Golf?

[teamroper60]

And with that, I am out of this discussion......    But to bring this back on topic, I will reiterate that I do not believe Obama is playing too much golf.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by teamroper60

Mr Desmond,

You are one of the ones who likes to argue about context, so let's run with that for a minute.

An organized group makes an assault on the embassy.  Information from one source says it was a group of protesters responding to a youtube video.   Information from another that says a terrorist group is claiming responsibility.

In general, protests that devolve into a riot are not well organized.

Terrorist groups, particularly those associated with Al Quaida, have shown a propensity for using internet sources to pronounce their "victories" .

The mere fact an Al Quaida affiliated group was taking responsibility for the assualt should have given pause to the concept of laying the blame on a video until more evidence could be gathered.

So regardless of what he said in the Rose Gardern (and we could argue over the context and verbiage of it as well but this is already well off the original topic), his administration went on a two week blitz blaming this on a video.   They could have avoided an entire discussion about cover-ups, lying, etc..   if they had simply said (in his own words), "We will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people."   That one sentence would have covered either scenario.

Obama is long-winded.

Don't agree with you about a "blitz."

I do agree that that it's taken too long for them to state at one time: this is what happened, and we are finding those responsible.

Obama and his WH do a lot of things that make me shake my head, but then, so does EVERY Administration, and I've been looking at politics since 1968.

But then, as a young teen, I also thought it glorious that Nixon was elected in '68. Armchair quarterbacking says Humphrey would have been the better choice. That election was another squeaker. I sided with the Republicans until 2000. When they took that extreme right turn, I couldn't take that turn with them. And looking at the GOP rhetoric and their behavior since that time, it seems I made the correct choice - for me. I'm a practical idealist, and I can't stomach what I see in today's GOP. It's not as if I enjoy what a lot of Dems proclaim - I'm just one of those caught in the middle.

[David in FL]

- I'm just one of those caught in the middle.

You sir, are an extreme leftist. Like many though, you try to convince yourself and others that you're not. Sorry.....

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by David in FL

You sir, are an extreme leftist. Like many though, you try to convince yourself and others that you're not.

Sorry.....

LOL!

I'm happy to stand on the same side as Colin Powell, who endorsed Obama this morning.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by teamroper60

And yet, there was enough intelligence to convince both houses of congress, including 82 Democratic Representatives and  29 Democratic Senators, to vote in favor of the bill which authorized the war.   That bill BTW, was co-sponsored by a Democrat (Gephardt)...

Yes, there was enough intelligence passed on by the Administration. I bought it myself.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by phan52

Yes, there was enough intelligence passed on by the Administration. I bought it myself.

The assumption is that ALL of the intelligence was passed on instead of the more likely scenario--that they only passed on the intelligence that supported the theory that would allow the removal from power of Saddam Hussein.

Again, you can't assume that you're hearing everything that the President has heard in his intelligence briefings, therefore you can't logically make the assumption that he's "lying" just because he has heard multiple theories and has been led to believe by the "experts" that a certain scenario is true.  Presidents aren't all-knowing.  They rely on the analysis of people who they believe are "experts" and go with their opinions.  Reagan, in my opinion, was a great President because he surrounded himself with "experts" who, for the most part, knew what they were talking about (moreso than any other President in recent history, in my opinion).

Governments and intelligence organizations release misinformation for a variety of reasons, but I believe more often than not it's because they are mistaken and NOT because there's some coordinated cover-up.  The biggest, from what I've seen, seems to be that not everyone in the administration knows as much as they THINK they know (which is why you get people from different departments who have different theories on why things happen).

What makes little sense is how a President can be slammed on one hand for being unable to coordinate anything in government, and on the other hand be accused of coordinating a massive cover-up campaign.  This goes for Bush as well as Obama.  It may satisfy opponents to believe that something sinister is at work, but more than likely it's a matter of the miscommunication that exists in all levels of government today.

Government is inefficient.  Why is that so difficult to accept?

[Mr. Desmond]

Gosh, can Congress play too much golf?

I don't think so.

I think if they played golf together, we'd get more done for the good of the Country. They would actually get to know one another. They might find they like one another.

[newtogolf]

Something I can agree with you on.  No one benefits when both sides dig in their heels and refuse to cooperate.  The problem is each party wants to cater to the extremists in their party rather than the majority of people that pay their salaries.  I might be a little right of center, you might be a little left, but we'd be able to reach consensus on most issues, why can't congress?

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Gosh, can Congress play too much golf?

I don't think so.

I think if they played golf together, we'd get more done for the good of the Country. They would actually get to know one another. They might find they like one another.

[David in FL]

LOL! I'm happy to stand on the same side as Colin Powell, who endorsed Obama this morning.

Wow, Colin Powell. There's a big endorsement! What's next, the AARP?!

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by David in FL

Wow, Colin Powell. There's a big endorsement! What's next, the AARP?!

Ah, poor David ... I don't know, since I've been labeled such a leftist by you, but I've heard that real moderates respect Colin Powell. They say he is a dying breed in that he represents common sense, a quality Republicans once valued.

[x129]

When you go all the way to the right, the people in the center look far away and it is easy to mistake them for leftist.

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Ah, poor David ... I don't know, since I've been labeled such a leftist by you, but I've heard that real moderates respect Colin Powell. They say he is a dying breed in that he represents common sense, a quality Republicans once valued.

[Mr. Desmond]

Well, at least we know Mitt won't be taking up golf!

His Day 1 is already planned.

The Morning After ...

President-elect Willard M. Romney — congratulations! It’s a Mormon miracle, when you think about it, even bigger than Brigham Young University’s stunning upset of No. 1-ranked Miami in 1990.

Turns out, you really could write off 47 percent of Americans, the moochers and victims. All it took was a tough march through the suburbs of Florida, Virginia, Colorado and — ha, ha, Bruce Springsteen — Ohio.

But be careful crediting providence: it almost went the other way, after that Senate candidate in Indiana, Richard Mourdock, said it was part of God’s plan for rape victims to carry their assailants’ babies, one day after you cut an ad for him. Good golly, gobsmackers, that was close!

No, matter, the past is Etch A Sketchable, the whole of it, as you’ve just shown. From Severe Conservative to Milquetoast Mitt, it’s all the same. Now on to governance.

But before you take the oath, don’t forget the pledge — to Grover Norquist. You and Vice President-elect Paul Ryan both pledged fealty to the bearded, much-feared lobbyist. You will never, ever, under any circumstances, war or national emergency, raise taxes.

Next up, look at a map of the world. No matter how many times you said it, Syria is not Iran’s route to the sea. A large coastline to the south, the Persian Gulf, isn’t going anywhere.

You’ve promised to accomplish 15 different tasks on Day 1; let’s sort them by priority. The Affordable Care Act is gone, even though you need Congress to act (a mere formality, by Ryan’s assurance). All you 20-somethings on your parents’ health plans, all you sickly types with pre-existing conditions that you expect the insurance companies to cover, no more Obamacare for you. The ride is over, even if it means leaving 72 million Americans without health insurance, as the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based research foundation, calculated. Legacy, baby.

“You can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye.” So you said, back in the early days of the one-termer you just defeated, should the car companies be rescued by the government. Something was miscalculated there. Let’s pull all federal aid and try it again — the Bain way.

Latinos nearly cost you the election, especially in Florida, Colorado and Nevada. Well, those Mexicans, or whatever they are, can start self-deporting. It worked for your grandfather when he hightailed it out of Mexico in the face of official pressure. Just refuse to sign the Dream Act and make things … uncomfortable!

On to China, and a trade war. You promised to declare our biggest creditor a currency manipulator on Day 1. Say it loud and clear, brother. But watch for the stock market to crash and the Chinese to retaliate, setting off a domino effect that would rattle a very fragile global economy. Well, heck, they started it.

Speaking of global tantrums, re: climate change, there will be no change from the prior administration. Just do nothing, and never bring it up.

And here comes a dirty part. You promised to import the messy tar sands oil of Canada through the Keystone XL pipeline, “if I have to build it myself to get it here.” The problem is, lots of folks on the prairie don’t want an oil pipeline next to the homestead. Maybe Tagg can channel some of that aggressive energy of his out in the flatland, threaten to take a swing at farmers who are afraid of a little industrial intrusion on the corn fields.

Supreme Court: at long last, here comes the revenge of Robert Bork, your top adviser on the Supremes. He’s been stewing in bile for decades. Four of the justices are in their 70s, and that lib Ruth Bader Ginsburg, at 79, is a cancer survivor. The gays are this close from upsetting the sanctity of traditional marriage, especially with two states voting to approve of same-sex nuptials yesterday. You’ll probably get to name two justices. They’ll be in the mold of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, as you vowed on your Web site. Bork has a list. But watch for libertarian types like Sandra Day O’Connor, an appointee of President Reagan who said she feared stepping down because “it’s my party that’s destroying the country.”

And on this morning after, the morning-after pill itself is a target for elimination. It’s in the party platform, for Pete’s sake. But if it causes too much of a fuss to mess with women from the get-go, forget about the Taliban wing of the party. You can go both ways, or multiple choice, on the social issues, as always. What matters is that corporations continue to be treated as people, which means somebody ought to be able to marry one, somewhere, in this great land.

Math is not your strong point. You promised a tax cut of 20 percent, costing upward of $5 trillion, and an increase in defense spending of $2 trillion over the next decade, plus putting $716 billion back in Medicare from Obamacare savings — all while bringing the deficit under control. You can’t just say, “Of course they add up!” again, and make the numbers whole. That only works on TV.

On top of all of the above, you promised Jeremy, the college kid from the second debate, a job by 2014. Time for another miracle.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/25/the-morning-after-2/

[David in FL]

Ah, poor David ... I don't know, since I've been labeled such a leftist by you, but I've heard that real moderates respect Colin Powell. They say he is a dying breed in that he represents common sense, a quality Republicans once valued.

Ah yes. I'm sure that there're tens of thousands of undecided "real" moderates out there just waiting to see who Colin Powell is going to endorse. As if there was ever any doubt. If there's anyone less relevant than Donald Trump, it might just be Colin Powell.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by David in FL

Ah yes. I'm sure that there're tens of thousands of undecided "real" moderates out there just waiting to see who Colin Powell is going to endorse. As if there was ever any doubt.

If there's anyone less relevant than Donald Trump, it might just be Colin Powell.

How's that Irritable Male Syndrome thing working for ya'?

You are one cranky dude.

Or is it just a bad case of Romnesia?

[David in FL]

How's that Irritable Male Syndrome thing working for ya'? You are one cranky dude. Or is it just a bad case of Romnesia?

Nope. Feeling better and better every day. Less than 2 weeks away from a real boost to the economy. :-)

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by David in FL

Ah yes. I'm sure that there're tens of thousands of undecided "real" moderates out there just waiting to see who Colin Powell is going to endorse. As if there was ever any doubt.

If there's anyone less relevant than Donald Trump, it might just be Colin Powell.

I almost regret saying this, but I'd love to hear how Donald Trump has more relevance in political discourse than Colin Powell.  Colin Powell was CJCS, National Security Advisor, and Secretary of State.  He worked at the most senior levels of foreign policy for administrations of both parties.  He's an inner-city kid who made it without a single iota of assistance from anyone; nor did he win a political lottery.  (Obama certainly wasn't born into his position, but I'll concede that he rose to his status mostly due to luck of being in the right place at the right time in our country.)

Let's not forget that Colin Powell was opposed from the Iraq war from the beginning, and when the decision was made to go, he fought for the most possible troops to get the job done right.  His CINC made a decision that he disagreed with, but the American public never knew about it at the time.  He didn't leak information, nor did he try to torpedo the mission from the inside.  He went to the UN and executed the mission he was given with every ounce of professionalism and skill he could muster, as any good staff officer would do.

Colin Powell could have been Vice President for either party, and they would have been grateful and lucky to have him.  He would have been an unassailable choice and a boost to any ticket.  He couldn't run as a democrat, and he would no longer serve a Republican party that no longer represented Republicans.

Colin Powell is a hero, statesman, and role model for every person in every station of life.  Donald Trump is a joke.  A very rich joke, but a joke nonetheless.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by k-troop

I almost regret saying this, but I'd love to hear how Donald Trump has more relevance in political discourse than Colin Powell.  Colin Powell was CJCS, National Security Advisor, and Secretary of State.  He worked at the most senior levels of foreign policy for administrations of both parties.  He's an inner-city kid who made it without a single iota of assistance from anyone; nor did he win a political lottery.  (Obama certainly wasn't born into his position, but I'll concede that he rose to his status mostly due to luck of being in the right place at the right time in our country.)

Let's not forget that Colin Powell was opposed from the Iraq war from the beginning, and when the decision was made to go, he fought for the most possible troops to get the job done right.  His CINC made a decision that he disagreed with, but the American public never knew about it at the time.  He didn't leak information, nor did he try to torpedo the mission from the inside.  He went to the UN and executed the mission he was given with every ounce of professionalism and skill he could muster, as any good staff officer would do.

Colin Powell could have been Vice President for either party, and they would have been grateful and lucky to have him.  He would have been an unassailable choice and a boost to any ticket.  He couldn't run as a democrat, and he would no longer serve a Republican party that no longer represented Republicans.

Colin Powell is a hero, statesman, and role model for every person in every station of life.  Donald Trump is a joke.  A very rich joke, but a joke nonetheless.

Here here!!

[phan52]

Originally Posted by dave67az

The assumption is that ALL of the intelligence was passed on instead of the more likely scenario--that they only passed on the intelligence that supported the theory that would allow the removal from power of Saddam Hussein.

Again, you can't assume that you're hearing everything that the President has heard in his intelligence briefings, therefore you can't logically make the assumption that he's "lying" just because he has heard multiple theories and has been led to believe by the "experts" that a certain scenario is true.  Presidents aren't all-knowing.  They rely on the analysis of people who they believe are "experts" and go with their opinions.  Reagan, in my opinion, was a great President because he surrounded himself with "experts" who, for the most part, knew what they were talking about (moreso than any other President in recent history, in my opinion).

Governments and intelligence organizations release misinformation for a variety of reasons, but I believe more often than not it's because they are mistaken and NOT because there's some coordinated cover-up.  The biggest, from what I've seen, seems to be that not everyone in the administration knows as much as they THINK they know (which is why you get people from different departments who have different theories on why things happen).

What makes little sense is how a President can be slammed on one hand for being unable to coordinate anything in government, and on the other hand be accused of coordinating a massive cover-up campaign.  This goes for Bush as well as Obama.  It may satisfy opponents to believe that something sinister is at work, but more than likely it's a matter of the miscommunication that exists in all levels of government today.

Government is inefficient.  Why is that so difficult to accept?

That is what happened in the Bush White House. People like VP Cheney and Under-Secretary of State John Bolton bypassed the usual vetting by the intelligence community and insisted on having the information direct. They were not experts on parsing the information by any stretch, and they simply used the information that fit their agenda. Hence, WMD's in Iraq. It was willful misinformation. Somebody should have gone to jail.