Midnight At The Crossroads
 

Barrack Obama eloquently tells America and the world that he can lead them to peace and prosperity. However in truth Barrack Obama is nothing more than a poor black man who has sold his soul to the devil down at the crossroads at midnight. For 20 years Barrack Obama has done nothing except rubber stamp whatever the Democratic Party position was in Illinois. One of the essential qualities of a leader is tread where no men dare to go out of conviction, and taking the risk of not only going it alone but of ostricization by your own people. What made George Washington a great leader wasn't the fact that he signed on to the Revolution but that after facing defeat after defeat by the British army he continued doggedly to keep his opposition up. If George Washington had thrown up his hands and said we are beaten and went home, nobody would even remember who he was. Barrack Obama on the very simple issue of not wearing an American flag lapel pin and saying the pledge of allegiance has caved into criticism about his patriotism and now wears such a pin and salutes the flag. Barrack Obama talks the talk but does not walk the walk of true leadership.

I think he-like Michael Jackson- is turning into a white woman (democrat), he talks more like Hillary every day. It just depends on who he is talking to and what day it is. He owns both sides of every argument. He learned from the best, Hillary.

He's obviously no leader.

Everyone (party handlers, contributors, speech writers, wife) ...they all pull him around by his ears!

(wait ...can I get banned for that?) :p

Gross simplification is seldom correct in attempting to analysis complex issues. All the "chicken little, sky is going to fall" pundits from both camps are historically wrong. It will not be as good or as bad as the two political poles like to claim no matter which canditate wins.

Just settle down and take your pick, knowing full well all the problems will not be solved and we won't disappear down the rat hole either way. It is not that crictical which ends up as president. It is far more critical who we put in power in the Senate and House. That is where we should focus.

I cannot imagine he would look worse in a pant-suit...

For sure, and the Senate and House have been doing so good. Can we keep Nancy and Harry for four more years?

Who said they were doing well? Not I, ever. :rolleyes:

Just keep circlejerking off on the presidental office and see where you'll be in a few years. Congress hold the purse strings to pay for whatever nonsense (Dem or Rep, Lib or Conservative) government tries to foist of on us (and they have both caused great harm to the US). Follow the money.:eek:

Here ya go:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1217978426.jpg

For sure, and the Senate and House have been doing so good. Can we keep Nancy and Harry for four more years?

Did you notice the green, I didn't say you did, it was just a comment on the Senate and the House.

And as for McCain . . .

When he ran for president in 1999, he was opposed to offshore drilling. In early 2008, he was waffling about it. Now he's all for it, and right now.

Earlier this year he said he didn't "like obscene profits being made anywhere" and would be "glad to look" at a windfall profits tax on oil companies. Now he blasts the idea.

He used to think warrantless wiretapping was illegal. Now he says otherwise.

In 2007 he said the Rep platform should say that abortion should be legal in cases of rape and incest. Now he no longer believes that.

He used to give speeches defending the estate tax. Now he says its the most unfair tax of all.

And so on. There are so many issues on which McCain is switching sides, as we speak, to get political advantage.

You know what? That is politics.

He is growing up and getting smarter with age. It works with some people

Ted, the first part of that sentence you were fine (except curiosity would be better suited than conviction, the latter implies a known mission whereas if you are going where no man has gone, a belief set isn't part of the equation), the last part, well, that defines a bad leader. By definition, a good leader does not risk going it alone. they have a vision, they effectively communicate it to the masses via a well-formulated plan, and then they execute. Good leaders take risks while they execute the plan. A leader is a failure, by definition, if they are ostracized by their own people. You're thinking of the Hollywood movie version of a leader who saves the day at the end 'cause he was right all along. Hurrayyyyy, the crowd cheers as the credits start to roll.

it doesn't work that way in real life.

McCain is not a leader; he is a maverick. We don't need a maverick. We need more than a cranky old 25-year tenured Senator, otherwise known as an underachiever.

Sorry, could not see the color on my BlackBerry!

Not at 72. Nice try.

LOL

He is growing up and getting smarter with age. It works with some people

and not for you in your fortys

Well, it is interesting how his brain growth spurt just seems to coincide with winning the primary election and facing the general . . .

Shauny..I thought about using the word "vision" But one has to have belief in his vision to act on it. You have to have the conviction of your vison. Bob Dylan at Newport went electric and was booed for it. Yet a year or two later everybody was electric. Bob Dylan was a cultural leader. Abe Lincoln was certainily ostracized even by members of his own cabinet, yet he stuck to his convictions and moved the ball at his own speed.

A leader is someone who guides, or shows the way to a paticular goal, the point man so to speak. Not everyone can see the light at the begining. So one has to take the risk that no one will see it, and may even disapprove.

Bill Clinton was not a leader, because he never did anything without testing the wind to see what direction it was blowing. He could have been a leader, but didn't have the sac. A tragic figure. In other words U can be President and still not be a leader. we have had care takers for Presidents.

JFK during the Cuban Missle crisis...the generals were sure pushing him to reaact with force.

TR Roosevelt....went against his own Republican Party with his Trust Busting.

FDR....knew in 1940 the USA would have to fight Germany, yet the country was oposed to that notion.

Harry Truman...recognized the state of Israel before anyother nation did. How many nations still don't recognize Israel today?

Nixon opened China, and started disarmament talks with the Soviets. That was not popular in his own Party. It is besides the point that Nixon also led the way to demonize China in the first place.

Reagan with his lower tax policies sure was pilloried even by his own VP. That set the stage a decade later for the prosperity of the 90's. And you all think it was Bill. :) With this large of an economy you set the ball rolling and a decade later you see the results. As they say Rome was not built in a day.

GW Bush..Ousted Sadam, and when it went badly he kept to his course of action, revised his course and now seems to have turned around. Point being he did not cut and run, as so many have wished that he would do. If Iraq in 20 years turns out OK, there are going to be a lot of people who are going to be eating dodo.

I think GW is a good case in point of a Leader that had formulated no real plan before he led the nation into war.

I am not so sure that plan formulation is a function of leadership, it maybe the difference between a good leader and a bad leader. Hitler was a leader, he had a vision but never had a real laid out plan on how to get there. Everybody thinks that Germany during the war was run like a well oiled machine. That was not true it was run chaotically. The Luftwaffe for instance would not cooperate with the Kriegsmarine with regards to the war in the Alantic. Germany was run quite feudally under the Nazis.

One other point about the prosperity of the 90's. Financial assets were under valued for decades because of the threat of Nuclear War. When that threat lifted with the fall of the Soviets, those assets rose to their fair market value. Also the fact that we were able to downsize the military pumped additional monies into the economy, thus the "peace dividend"

Bill clinton merely rode the wave. He did have the good sense to listen to Robert Ruben and Alan Greenspan and stay away from messing with the economy. Ouiet frankly Obama is going to mess with the economy to right perceived social wrongs. His programs will turn the USA into a California or UK pre Thatcher.

Other leftist candidates have run before and have gone down in flames. This maybe the perfect storm where one of those lefties gets in office. Not only will Obama initiate social change, MOREOVER HE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO CONTAIN A LARGE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY IN CONGRESS BENT ON ENACTING SOCIAL LEGISLATION.

Jamie Dimon of Morgan Stanley calls the Democrats "CRAZY" and "with their programs could ruin the country." That is from a large supporter of the Democratic Party. One of Hillarys big donors.

So this election cycle could institute something other than the same old same old. That is where RPKQ is wrong. The world is in a sea change, the old formulas no longer work. A new unrecognizable dynamic is upon us. In other words the things you could count on happening no longer can be counted on.

The problem with Obama and his rhetoric of change is that he does not account for the necessity of transition form the old to the new. He is part of the instant gratification generation, and wants it now. That shock will unleash a backlash. one that could very well end the Republic.

what utter bull***** nonsense. sorry, you get an F.

Every generation sees the sky is falling, "sea changes" are seldom recognizable during the change, only afterwards. Look through history, every culture, every generation, every nation saw the same. Every election has been touted as "the" most important in recent memory. BS. Human nature has not changed in all of recorded history. Cultures change mostly for the good, but the dynamics of politics have not changed.

The only change we need to accept is that the US is not able to stand alone against the rest of the world (we never could). We are no longer the only gorillia in the room. This is the change for the 21st Century. And the POTUS wil need to embrace that change. McCain cannot. Who knows about Obama.