100 Daze

[freedom]

and you are???? LOLOLOL I am in tears laughing on the floor

and it's economic there "expert" LOLOL

i can't spell , oh well .. b ut i know my data ... unlike yourself , i'm much futher ahead in the game ... i was telling you about the oncoming doom since WHEN ?

let me share something that should cause you to cry yourself to sleep tonight ...'

GDP 4Q 08 -6.3

GDP projected 1Q 09 -6.1

This isn't year on year but cummliative

SO the US has taken a GDP hit of roughly 13% ....

enjoy your sleep .

 

[Garfield1966]

prove away.

 

[EastUS]

GREAT leaders like Patton, Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt are hard to find today as it is more about looking good on TV then it is about honor and integrity.

Indeed. Mr. Lincoln's another who'd fail "The American Idol" political arena of today. There's no question war leaders like Patton would never hold such positions in these times, nor would T.R have even the slightest chance to have ever become president. In the case of T.R....well; what can be said of a man who left his position in government to personally fight in a war he sought? Thusly; He backed up his beliefs at the very possible cost of his life. You just can't find that sort of "good help" in politics anymore. I have a very hard time imagining the likes of the Clintons, Bush Jr...and don't-make-me-laugh-Obama EVER having that sort willingess to personally sacrifice for what they supposedly 'believe" in.

 

[Garfield1966]

I guess I define a leader a bit differently than some. I look at someone such as the Israeli Colonel from the Entebbe raid who died in the line of duty. He lead his men into combat and lost his life in the process. He was a man who lead by example not a person who instructed others to do his bidding. Regan did not know about illegal activities being taken by members of his administration. According to most accounts, he was not a hands on POTUS. He let others do the work and he was quite unaware of the goings on in his administration. At the time IIRC, he had the most people under investigation of any administration in history. He also had such notables as Watts, Edwin Meese III (he had the statues in the Dept of Justice covered up so their privates were not showing) and numerous others.

I understand that he was a 'nice man' in person and quite amiable but I would by no means classify him as a leader. I cannot think of any president in my life time that I would put in that classification. IMO, those folks are long gone and are relegated to the history books. The face of politics no longer lends it's self to people of character or moral fiber. They no longer consider them selves civil servants in the true sense of the word. And what is worse, is that "We the people ... " allow them to ascend to office.

 

[delldude]

I guess I define a leader a bit differently than some. I look at someone such as the Israeli Colonel from the Entebbe raid who died in the line of duty. He lead his men into combat and lost his life in the process. He was a man who lead by example not a person who instructed others to do his bidding. Regan did not know about illegal activities being taken by members of his administration. According to most accounts, he was not a hands on POTUS. He let others do the work and he was quite unaware of the goings on in his administration. At the time IIRC, he had the most people under investigation of any administration in history. He also had such notables as Watts, Edwin Meese III (he had the statues in the Dept of Justice covered up so their privates were not showing) and numerous others.

I understand that he was a 'nice man' in person and quite amiable but I would by no means classify him as a leader. I cannot think of any president in my life time that I would put in that classification. IMO, those folks are long gone and are relegated to the history books. The face of politics no longer lends it's self to people of character or moral fiber. They no longer consider them selves civil servants in the true sense of the word. And what is worse, is that "We the people ... " allow them to ascend to office.

They run on the concept of 'plausible deniability'............

Wiki view

 

[Garfield1966]

Plausible deniable is the equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and saying "la la la la la la" while someone is talking to you. That is right up there with "I don't recall". What a load of BS. You are the freaking P leader of the free world. You dam well ought to recall the important facts of your admin, if not, your not fit for office IMO.

I understand the concept but I believe it has no merit. If you are the boss of a company, your are responsible for what that company does. Whether you knew about the actions or not, you own it because it was your responsibility to know about it and to hire people who would keep you informed. If someone commits criminal acts under your watch, at the very least the criminals should face the consequences, if they do not, then as far as I am concerned, the leader is complicit in the crimes.

Piney,

As I said, I guess we look at leadership a bit differently. I do nt see RR as a leader at all. JFK, maybe as you said but he was not in office long enough to see what his plan for this country were. I tend to believe that he and his brother would have made good POTUS's but they were taken from us before their time..l,

 

[Freedom4all]

prove away.

Do the research yourself. Carter left a massive economic hole (much like what Obama is doing)

Case in point:
Where were unemployment, taxes, inflation, and interest rates in 1977-1981?
Where were unemployment, taxes, inflation, and interest rates in 1981-1989?

Reagan was for:

Reducing the growth of government spending,
Reducing income and capital gains marginal tax rates,
Reducing government regulation of the economy,
Control the money supply to reduce inflation.

Before Reagan there was gas shortages, rationing, and high unemployment. There was none of that after Reagan was elected.

Reagan's leadership mopped up a huge mess that endured 2 terms vs 1 timer Carter and future 1 timer Obama. Maybe you were more concerned about who tingled one leg the most perhaps?

 

[Garfield1966]

We are talking about leader ship abilities of the individual. You are saying RR was a leader. Show me how he was a leader, not that we was present during a certain time in history. You are going on the basis that all of what transpired during RR's terms were solely due to his leadership and political skill. I believe that he may have had a few ideas but that his staff was the architect of what transpired. All that I have read about RR was equivalent to Bush II in that RR had very limited understanding of economics, history or law. What he believed in and what his principles were are not relevant to the conversation.

 

[Freedom4all]

We are talking about leader ship abilities of the individual. You are saying RR was a leader. Show me how he was a leader, not that we was present during a certain time in history. You are going on the basis that all of what transpired during RR's terms were solely due to his leadership and political skill. I believe that he may have had a few ideas but that his staff was the architect of what transpired. All that I have read about RR was equivalent to Bush II in that RR had very limited understanding of economics, history or law. What he believed in and what his principles were are not relevant to the conversation.

Again history has proven you and your "beliefs" wrong.

 

[Garfield1966]

well, until you show me this 'proof' all I see are empty words. So like I said, prove away.

Why don't you start with how you define leadership and we can go from there. Depending on you definition, there may be no use for further discussion.

 

[southwind]

well, until you show me this 'proof' all I see are empty words. So like I said, prove away.

Why don't you start with how you define leadership and we can go from there. Depending on you definition, there may be no use for further discussion.

Well , I can tell you this much. I definently don't define leadership as reading a script from a teleprompter !

Or by telling foriegn leaders, "We Americans are sorry for everthing we have ever done" ! BTW, he's not speaking for me.

Or by shaking hands with Dictators, who despise us !

Need I go on ? :blink:

 

[Garfield1966]

Need I go on ? :blink:

Go on? I would be happy if you would start.

The issue is whether or not RR has leadership ability or not. Carter, Bush, Clinton, JFK, Nixon or Obabma are not the issue. Aside from JFK, it is fairly well accepted that none of them are considered leaders. If you have an argument that RR has leadership traits, then present it. If not, please stop wasting my time.

Again, try starting with your definition of what leadership is. Give examples of what it is, not what it is not. Telling a blind person the sun is not like the moon will not give the blind person any better understanding of what the sun is.

 

[Dignity]

he keeps bringing up the past eight years.

at the end of his current term and when he is seeking a second..

he will again bring up the past 12 years..but will shift back to the previous eight (prior to his term) and
attempt to justify why nothing was accomplished during his 4 year term (because of the eight before) and its necessary to elect him again, the second time..

he has already justified his term by bringing up someone elses administration without really showing what he is going to be able to do.

that is not leadership ability.

a leader would just focus on the situation present, without pointing fingers and just resolve it.

 

[Freedom4all]

well, until you show me this 'proof' all I see are empty words. So like I said, prove away.

Why don't you start with how you define leadership and we can go from there. Depending on you definition, there may be no use for further discussion.

You already have a predisposition as a far left liberal so trying to change your opinion on this matter is useless. Perhaps this subject is above your paygrade.

This has been well said by another.

Don't be afraid of friction. Friction, or even unpopularity, can be the price for trying to change the status quo. If elected leaders view their job as simply finding the center of gravity on every issue, they might retain their popularity -- but all they will have done is encapsulate public opinion, not lead it. On the other hand, if political leaders want to shape a new consensus, they have to risk alienating those who support the current status quo. Reagan knew that his job was not to make everybody like him, but to help move America in the right direction.

Focus on a few key goals. For Reagan, his goals were to confront Soviet expansionism, reduce the tax burden and place limits on the size of government. He proved to be highly successful on the first two goals, and only abstractly successful on the latter. The federal government expanded substantially during Reagan's presidency, even if we allow for military growth. But let's not confuse an inability to implement goals with the desirability of the goals. Reagan did change the debate about the nature of government and the open-ended expansion of the welfare state.

Don't confuse expertise with leadership. As a political leader, Reagan was masterful. He combined a clear sense of purpose with natural stagecraft and the charming occasional idiosyncrasy. He also understood that as president, you didn't need to be an expert, you could hire experts, and he did.

Be upbeat. People want to believe in their leadership, believe in their country, and believe in themselves. A president has to paint a picture of a better country and come up with the program to help get us there. There is an old saying in politics. "People don't care what you know until they know what you care."

 

[Garfield1966]

Piney,

I agree with most of what you define as a good leader. The one part that is missing but is shown by example with Roosevelt is the knowledge of how to do it ones self. The ability o actually lead others. I see a good military leader as one who not only tells me the nuts and bolts of 'how to hit a bulls eye" but actually takes e gun and puts a shot right on the red. A good leader at work is someone who can not only critique my work off of a check list but one who can sit at my computer and actually do my job.

I guess that is my biggest argument as to why RR much less any of the others are not leaders. RR was a great communicator. I would not argue that fact that he was also a man of honor, character and integrity. Not sure about the goals. I know his administration had goals but I do not believe they were his. I think he latched on to some ideas. I do not believe he knew on his own how to achieve them. I do not believe he could sit down and carry on a conversation about economics, or history. He was not, in my opinion, an intellectual.

I realize that a POTUS cannot be an expert in everything but I do believe a 'good' president (leader) is one who has a firm grasp about the major issues faced by any POTUS such as economics, taxes, military, social issues and the like. They have to be educated and smart enough to grasp concepts. I look at someone like Clinton and I believe he has the intellectual capability to e a great leader but posses none of the other characteristics to match. Everything I read about Clinton indicate that he was a very very smart man and could wrap his brain around pretty much anything. RR had the other characteristics but lacked the intellectual ability.