The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: JC5123 on February 18, 2011, 03:58:28 PM
-
Would this be considered having a fence pole stuck up your a$$?
"In his press conference Tuesday, Obama was called on to defend his positions – or lack thereof – on entitlement spending and the ongoing Middle Eastern uprising. In each case, the question was why the president hasn’t been clearer about his own vision.
Obama’s response was that by withholding his own recommendations, he is actually able to draw out a better result from others who must work to solve problems on their own – that choosing not to lead is the kind of leadership that these situations demand.
“History will end up recording that on every juncture, we were on the right side of history,” Obama said of Egypt. “What we didn't do is pretend we can predict the outcome, because we can't.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/15/murky-methods-key-obama-egypt-debt-crisis/#ixzz1ELlX7Uq6
-
Actually, he's dead right on Egypt. We didn't know what the outcome was going to be. Had we backed Mubarack and he lost, it would have been like Iran in 1979 when we were associated with the Shah after he went down. Had we sided with the demonstrators and they lost, it would have been like Cheney coming out in favor of the anti-Chaez coup before we knew whether it had suceeded. It pissed everyone of our Latin American allies off and made us look like idiots. Likewise, the regimes charges that the protestors were all funded by foriegn interests would have gained traction. Diplomacy is best conducted behind closed doors, and sometimes saying nothing of substance is the best course of action. This isn't a defense of BO per say, I just really can't see any other viable approach we could have taken.
FQ13
-
he is actually able to draw out a better result from others who must work to solve problems on their own – that choosing not to lead is the kind of leadership that these situations demand.
This is the part that really chaps my butt. This is the complete opposite of leadership. True that we cannot predict outcomes, but this is the spinelessness that the American people are sick of from our politicians. This is the same type of "leadership" that caused the debacle with the gulf oil spill last year.
I would hate to be in a burning building with our dear leader. You'd get your a$$ baked while he commissioned a committee to help him decide which exit to use! >:(
-
FQ - you forget that at the beginning of this he told the Egyptians to continue on their protests for change. He new well that this would result in the overthrow of Mubarack. And you will also recall that calls were made by Pres. BHO's "people" telling Mubarack to step down. And then there was that wonderful night with the White House announced that Mubarack's press conference was to be to announce his resignation ... Oooooops :-[
-
Decision by polling data IS NOT LEADERSHIP!!!!
-
Actually, he's dead right on Egypt. We didn't know what the outcome was going to be. Had we backed Mubarack and he lost, it would have been like Iran in 1979 when we were associated with the Shah after he went down. Had we sided with the demonstrators and they lost, it would have been like Cheney coming out in favor of the anti-Chaez coup before we knew whether it had suceeded. It pissed everyone of our Latin American allies off and made us look like idiots. Likewise, the regimes charges that the protestors were all funded by foriegn interests would have gained traction. Diplomacy is best conducted behind closed doors, and sometimes saying nothing of substance is the best course of action. This isn't a defense of BO per say, I just really can't see any other viable approach we could have taken.
FQ13
Saying nothing of substance is a cowards approach to diplomacy. Here is how a REAL leader deals with diplomacy.
-
Let's compare this "leader" of ours to the young man from Iowa who was favored to win the 112# class at State Wrestling, but forfeited his opening match, assuring no higher than third place, because he was drawn against a female wrestler. His belief is that it is wrong for him to disrespect females by challenging them in combative sport. He also does not believe that it is proper for males and females to have that type of contact outside of marriage.
ESPN's Rick Reilly was in DesMoines and said I have seen this female wrestling thing before, and it is no big deal, but it is hard to understand why a kid would give up his dream for some kind of religious reason.
What good is your Faith, your beliefs or your convictions if you are not willing to give up something of meaning or take a risk over them? Come on Mr. President - Answer that one for me!
-
We don't have "leadership" in Washington, we have "management." Big difference.
-
We don't have "leadership" in Washington, we have "management." Big difference.
We don't even have management. Management means that you are making decisions based on what is best for the organization.
-
We don't have "leadership" in Washington, we have "management." Big difference.
They're lawyers for the most part. Most couldn't manage a liquor store..
-
Let's compare this "leader" of ours to the young man from Iowa who was favored to win the 112# class at State Wrestling, but forfeited his opening match, assuring no higher than third place, because he was drawn against a female wrestler. His belief is that it is wrong for him to disrespect females by challenging them in combative sport. He also does not believe that it is proper for males and females to have that type of contact outside of marriage.
ESPN's Rick Reilly was in DesMoines and said I have seen this female wrestling thing before, and it is no big deal, but it is hard to understand why a kid would give up his dream for some kind of religious reason.
What good is your Faith, your beliefs or your convictions if you are not willing to give up something of meaning or take a risk over them? Come on Mr. President - Answer that one for me!
What if those beliefs are sexist garbage that demeans another person's God given abilities (how else would she get them?), because you see treating them as an equal and fellow athlete as being beneath you? Should I respect the level of insult he flung in that young woman's face by saying "I shouldn't compete with you because my twisted version of God say's you aren't worth my time"? She probably would have preferered he spit in her face. Maybe he won't wrestle blacks because the color might wear off? Sorry M58, I hate to unload on you like this, and I'm apologizing in advance, but when someone dresses straight up bigotry in Sunday clothes it pushes every single one of my buttons.You might have noticed that we are at war with people that treat women like crap because their version of God says so. This guy is doing the same thing. Use the Bible, Talmud or Koran to justify bigotry, you're still a bigot. And this Christian says that he doen't think that God is pleased. I apologize for my tone, but not the message.
FQ13
-
When did he say she was beneath him, or it wasn't worth his time?
-
What if those beliefs are sexist garbage that demeans another person's God given abilities (how else would she get them?), because you see treating them as an equal and fellow athlete as being beneath you? Should I respect the level of insult he flung in that young woman's face by saying "I shouldn't compete with you because my twisted version of God say's you aren't worth my time"? She probably would have preferered he spit in her face. Maybe he won't wrestle blacks because the color might wear off? Sorry M58, I hate to unload on you like this, and I'm apologizing in advance, but when someone dresses straight up bigotry in Sunday clothes it pushes every single one of my buttons.You might have noticed that we are at war with people that treat women like crap because their version of God says so. This guy is doing the same thing. Use the Bible, Talmud or Koran to justify bigotry, you're still a bigot. And this Christian says that he doen't think that God is pleased. I apologize for my tone, but not the message.
FQ13
I'd rather be that kind kids of "bigot" than be your kind of anything goes faux libertarian moron. Seriously, FQ, do you ever even read what you write?
-
FQ - Did you see anything in there that said it was for religious purposes except for what the dink from ESPN said? These are old fashioned beliefs that many of us have. I'm sure they are affected by our Faith, and his most likely are as well. But if you read the initial reports and heard the initial interviews nothing was said about "religion." This is something that was tacked on later as they "dug for dirt" on this home schooling family.
By the way, he did not say she "was beneath" him. He said it was wrong to disrespect a female by engaging in combat. I call that a very respectful thing and not an insult or disrespectful at all! Having spent many years at wrestling matches watching our son and while our daughter did stats we know a lot about the sport. There are a lot of things that go on in that circle that should not happen between a male and female in that situation. As a family we never faced our son making that decision, but he had team mates that needed to. Some forfeited, and some tried to wrestle - several lost, because they could not find a place to grab or hold the females that did not make them uncomfortable. You and anyone else can rip me for this, but you will not change my belief. And I may or may not rant back depending on my blood pressure and alcohol level.
Am I sexist in my beliefs? Yes I am! If you harm my son I will flat out shoot or stab you. But if you harm my wife or daughter I will rip your balls off and shove them down your throat until you choke blue on them >:(
-
I'd rather be that kind kids of "bigot" than be your kind of anything goes faux libertarian moron. Seriously, FQ, do you ever even read what you write?
Think about it Path. If I were to say you "I won't debate Path because God didn't intend for a (insert your demonination here, or alternatively "a man" or "former jew" etc.) to have that kind of role", when God has obviously given you the intellect to be an excellent debater, would you take it as anything less than a slap in the face? My point is simply this. Some folks say God intended the sexes to have different roles. In a lot of cases that is true. However, I don't believe that God gives us a talent he doesn't intend for us to use. If you say one shouldn't use it because of race, gender, religion etc., it seems to me you are arguing against plain evidence to the contrary given by God Himself. Its that simple. I won't wrestle a girl because God doesn't want me to? Well, why did he make you both excellent at your sport? Maybe you should reconsider.
FQ13
-
Think about what you are saying FQ!
I don't know of any Christian Denomination that says sexual relations and contact outside of marriage is allowable. I also do not know of one that says unchecked lust is allowable. Knowing what we know about how our human brain and the chemicals that make it tick work, do you honestly believe that two sexually developing and maturing teenagers of the opposite sex should be rolling around on the mat grabbing each others' bodies and "riding" each other?
Also, being a person that understands how babies are made and what leads to this, and also believing that teens should not be creating babies at this point in their life, I do not see this type of contact as being a good thing. Fun yes, but good no!
I have seen the involuntary physical response in both sexes in these matches. Males are more obvious, but it is noticeable in females as well. Having been of that age and under the influence of plentiful hormones it doesn't take much imagination to know what is going through his mind all night, and the temptations he will need to fight off if the right circumstances come around.
Call me a prude, but that is who I am.
-
Is it just me, or does anyone else wish they could find a fraction of this passion in the Oval Office at decision making time?
Please - No Pres. Clinton or cigar jokes!
-
I hate to say it, but Obummer is right this time.
If you take both sides of a position you are quite likely to wind up on the winning side. ::)
It's how the Irish have won every war they participated in. ;D
FQ again glories in his college indoctrinated ignorance.
First off, since he is to young to remember I will explain to him that the reason the Shah of Iran was overthrown was because jimmy carter did NOT give him any support. The fall of the Shah was an entirely preventable FP disaster that could have been staved off long enough to groom another pro western leader to replace him on his death.
As to the wrestling thing, Pathfinder and the rest of you have to cut him some slack.
A person who only has "strong opinions but is willing to listen to others" will never be able to comprehend the concept of "Principles", where a person says "This is where I stand and if you don't like it that is just to damn bad".
This lack of comprehension is why he is usually wrong in his opinions about Muslims and the war on terror.
People like FQ do not have idea, or philosophy for which they are willing to kill or die.
I pity them.
-
Think about what you are saying FQ!
I don't know of any Christian Denomination that says sexual relations and contact outside of marriage is allowable. I also do not know of one that says unchecked lust is allowable. Knowing what we know about how our human brain and the chemicals that make it tick work, do you honestly believe that two sexually developing and maturing teenagers of the opposite sex should be rolling around on the mat grabbing each others' bodies and "riding" each other?
Also, being a person that understands how babies are made and what leads to this, and also believing that teens should not be creating babies at this point in their life, I do not see this type of contact as being a good thing. Fun yes, but good no!
I have seen the involuntary physical response in both sexes in these matches. Males are more obvious, but it is noticeable in females as well. Having been of that age and under the influence of plentiful hormones it doesn't take much imagination to know what is going through his mind all night, and the temptations he will need to fight off if the right circumstances come around.
Call me a prude, but that is who I am.
I apologized to you twice in my first post M58 because what PO'ed me wasn't you. You are a decent guy. What drives me nuts is the "lets use the Word to justify social inequalities" argument. So please understand, this has absoloutley nothing to do with you. What it does have to do with is telling a girl she can't play because she's a girl. Its like the old Negro League in base ball. I'm not saying girls can compete with guys in sports on average. But those that can should get the chance. As far as the sweaty groping? How many wrestlers are gay? Would you refuse to wrestle one? Look, its part of the game, you grab what you can. I don't see wrestling as any different than a karate class where men and women pair off. Its good for men in that they realize girls can be dangerous and good for women as they get to practice against larger opponents. Do people get aroused? Probably (in my case yes on some occasions), but its not WHY you are doing it. Yeah, the lust/fight impulse is pretty close. Still, wrestling a girl is in no way like going to a strip club. You aren't there to get off, you are there to compete, and the rules of gentlemanly/ladylike behavior are out the window on the mat and in full force off it. Its no different than boxing. In the ring, you hit people on the mouth. Outside you don't. Wresteling? Grab her chest/his ass in the rimg, outside keep your hands where they belong. This seems pretty basic.
FQ13
-
I apologized to you twice in my first post M58 because what PO'ed me wasn't you. You are a decent guy. What drives me nuts is the "lets use the Word to justify social inequalities" argument. So please understand, this has absoloutley nothing to do with you. What it does have to do with is telling a girl she can't play because she's a girl. Its like the old Negro League in base ball. I'm not saying girls can compete with guys in sports on average. But those that can should get the chance. As far as the sweaty groping? How many wrestlers are gay? Would you refuse to wrestle one? Look, its part of the game, you grab what you can. I don't see wrestling as any different than a karate class where men and women pair off. Its good for men in that they realize girls can be dangerous and good for women as they get to practice against larger opponents. Do people get aroused? Probably (in my case yes on some occasions), but its not WHY you are doing it. Yeah, the lust/fight impulse is pretty close. Still, wrestling a girl is in no way like going to a strip club. You aren't there to get off, you are there to compete, and the rules of gentlemanly/ladylike behavior are out the window on the mat and in full force off it. Its no different than boxing. In the ring, you hit people on the mouth. Outside you don't. Wresteling? Grab her chest/his ass in the rimg, outside keep your hands where they belong. This seems pretty basic.
FQ13
That is your basic error. You don't understand the issue.
What this is about is The boys right to say this goes against my principles and I will not do it.
Like I posted before, those who have no principles will never be able to understand those who do.
-
I hate to say it, but Obummer is right this time.
If you take both sides of a position you are quite likely to wind up on the winning side. ::)
It's how the Irish have won every war they participated in. ;D
FQ again glories in his college indoctrinated ignorance.
First off, since he is to young to remember I will explain to him that the reason the Shah of Iran was overthrown was because jimmy carter did NOT give him any support. The fall of the Shah was an entirely preventable FP disaster that could have been staved off long enough to groom another pro western leader to replace him on his death.
As to the wrestling thing, Pathfinder and the rest of you have to cut him some slack.
A person who only has "strong opinions but is willing to listen to others" will never be able to comprehend the concept of "Principles", where a person says "This is where I stand and if you don't like it that is just to damn bad".
This lack of comprehension is why he is usually wrong in his opinions about Muslims and the war on terror.
People like FQ do not have idea, or philosophy for which they are willing to kill or die.
I pity them.
I have to disagree with you here, and it appears that you disagree with yourself in your own post. This thread is about leadership, and you cannot have true leadership without principle. As a leader you can't have it both ways, and especially in todays society, the sheep NEED a real leader. Most have been dumbed down to the point they have no self direction. Even throughout most of history the majority of people are not self starters. People may line up behind an idea, but most have never had the principles to draw that line in the sand. To say this is how far you go, and no farther.
Sadly todays society is even worse, and sadly the feminist movement has been a major factor in the degredation of "real" men. We are taught now that we must be sensitive and not show aggression. We have to be open and inclusive, and don't dare call a spade a spade. You might offend someone. Too f$%^ing bad. I applaud the kid for having the balls to stand by his beliefs.
As for taking both sides, you may come out on the winning side, but you lose all respect in the process.
-
I.
A person who only has "strong opinions but is willing to listen to others" will never be able to comprehend the concept of "Principles", where a person says "This is where I stand and if you don't like it that is just to damn bad".
This lack of comprehension is why he is usually wrong in his opinions about Muslims and the war on terror.
People like FQ do not have idea, or philosophy for which they are willing to kill or die.
I pity them.
On this point my friend, you would be dead wrong. Literally. No joke, I am open and tolerant to a fault. However, that is because I believe in a set of rules and values that says this is good idea for a reason. Its all about classical liberalism. Locke, Jefferson, Smith, Mill and Hayek. Tolerance isn't just something we practice for its own sake (like the idiot lefties pretend to do when its convienant), its something we believe in because the alternative is far worse. Seriously Tom, my basic philosophy can be found in the Declaration, the Bill of Rights, or if you want it on a bumper sticker, the Gadsen Flag. Point being, I want to live in a society where we all say "I believe X, but you are free to prove me wrong". What I WILL kill or die over is someone saying "You will believe Y and if you question Y you will be dealt with". Those people, whether on the left or right I have serious and potentially lethal issues with. Don't ever think that someone who tolerates dissent will peacefully allow tyranny to change the basic rules of the game. It might be a fatal mistake. Just ask King George III.
FQ13
-
We REALLY need a sarcasm smilie.
JC, you are forgetting the major factor, we are talking about politicians, they don't care if you respect them, just so long as you vote for them.
As for the rest of your post. majority will never understand the thing shared by the Troops at Valley forge, Soviet dissidents, and Muslim fanatics. They don't have "opinions", they had principles, beliefs, and they all shared one ultimate truth, We can be beaten, tortured, humiliated, our possessions seized, our relatives tortured and killed our country devastated by warfare, but in the final analysis a man of principle can never be defeated. He can be killed, but he can never be bent to the will of others unless he allows it.
The soft minded will never understand that.