posted elsewhere

[callmeslick]

but referring to my words here:

I'll preface this wordy post(warning!!) with this bit of personal history. I've been posting stuff about politics on another forum, which CUDA also posts to, for about 11 years now(CUDA less, but not that much). I state this because I hope CUDA at least backs me on the facts that I have spoken about these topics consistently. Anyhow, a few themes have been long-term staples of mine, such as, universal healthcare, sensible gun sales processes, religious intolerance, etc. These sorts of things have spanned, on that forum, over two very different Presidencies, but my positions remain consistent. Where that is relevent is on two that have been in my mind this week: Privacy in America, and The Presidency.

First off, privacy, and government intrusion. I have been warning of the vast overreach entailed in the Patriot act since it came out. What strikes me, though, this week is the cries from the right, expressing fear that the dreaded Obama White House will intrude on the privacy of the people and punish the people through such information as they glean through those intrusions. The fearful right-wingers of course mean that they fear the intrusions on 'their people' by and large, but that is human nature. However, I seem to recall stating that exact same fear from the outset, on a more general note. In other words, once such extreme power is given to the government, subsequent governments of any variety can use those powers, domestically, for their own reasons. Sure, there are checks via the judiciary, and sure, such powers might be the ONLY WAY to truly safeguard against terrorist acts on a regular basis, but to me, the potential for excess outweighs the infrequent violent act. I've said this during Bush, and will say it during the Obama terms. If, by galvanizing the right, along with the left, which has always been very alarmist over the Patriot Act, we get momentum toward a fresh look at what has happened to our most essential right, that of privacy, I am all for it.

Secondly, though, I have be pondering the brutal responsibilties of being POTUS. When Bush was in office, I felt his policies were often wrongheaded, that he was out of touch and not too bright, and thus easily led by a truly evil man in the VP. However, I ALWAYS(here's where CUDA should back me up) tossed the guy this bone: being POTUS is the most difficult, stressful, demanding job on the planet......bar none. Think about it, in the current moment. Every morning, these constants make up the International scene: Syria, and the involvement of Iran, Lebanon, Israel, other players; China and India wish to be great powers, both have the resources(both human and natural) to pull it off, Africa is a mess, Europe is weak and fractured, Russia has the same aspirations as China and India, but without the resources(a desperate situation);North Korea.. On and on, I am sure I've overlooked several other major issues. On the domestic side, you have economic recovery, underemployment,immigration, modernization, a host of hot-button social issues, inner city violence, rural poverty,long-term debt planning. And this list is merely the constants to which Obama awakes every morning, not to overlook the unforseen events, and highly classified threats of which we may never be privvy. Like I say, I always used to try and give Bush the benefit of trying to manage the unmanagable on a daily basis, and it sure would be nice to see the anti-Obama camp do likewise from time to time. All things considered, Obama could have done far worse......Romney couldn't have done half as well, no matter what anyone's wishful thinking tells them

[CUDA]

I'll back you on your stances. Not sure I agree that Romney wouldn't have done better. Even Clinton has referred to Obama as an amateur, in all fairness I have believed that from the start. And the longer he holds office the more it plays out as truth. No question it's the hardest job in the world. But his total, inexperience is rearing its head. You don't go from playing call of duty to commanding the Normandy invasion and not blow it. You just don't have the experience. Recent report say the ALL of his advisors, everyone of them told him to arm the Syrian rebels and he declined, so he doesn't even follow the advise of those he chose to give him advise. Is that the inexperience? Or is it arrogance?

[callmeslick]

I'll back you on your stances. Not sure I agree that Romney wouldn't have done better. Even Clinton has referred to Obama as an amateur, in all fairness I have believed that from the start. And the longer he holds office the more it plays out as truth. No question it's the hardest job in the world. But his total, inexperience is rearing its head. You don't go from playing call of duty to commanding the Normandy invasion and not blow it. You just don't have the experience. Recent report say the ALL of his advisors, everyone of them told him to arm the Syrian rebels and he declined, so he doesn't even follow the advise of those he chose to give him advise. Is that the inexperience? Or is it arrogance?

or is it good common sense? I don't know what you read, but ALL his advisors clearly did NOT tell him to arm the rebels. In fact, many are of the opinion that it is dangerous to arm a group which might have clear links to radical islamists. Israeli experts have chimed in likewise. Once again, you go and read biased untrue accounts, and leap to the conclusion of incompetence and arrogance. The Clinton reference was campaign rhetoric, and virtually EVERY policy move on the international stage by this administration has been both sound, and LIGHT YEARS past the thinking of the previous one, which got us into two dumbass wars and a host of other issues.

[Pudfark]

I'll back you on your stances. Not sure I agree that Romney wouldn't have done better. Even Clinton has referred to Obama as an amateur, in all fairness I have believed that from the start. And the longer he holds office the more it plays out as truth. No question it's the hardest job in the world. But his total, inexperience is rearing its head. You don't go from playing call of duty to commanding the Normandy invasion and not blow it. You just don't have the experience. Recent report say the ALL of his advisors, everyone of them told him to arm the Syrian rebels and he declined, so he doesn't even follow the advise of those he chose to give him advise. Is that the inexperience? Or is it arrogance?

or is it good common sense? I don't know what you read, but ALL his advisors clearly did NOT tell him to arm the rebels. In fact, many are of the opinion that it is dangerous to arm a group which might have clear links to radical islamists. Israeli experts have chimed in likewise. Once again, you go and read biased untrue accounts, and leap to the conclusion of incompetence and arrogance. The Clinton reference was campaign rhetoric, and virtually EVERY policy move on the international stage by this administration has been both sound, and LIGHT YEARS past the thinking of the previous one, which got us into two dumbass wars and a host of other issues.

I politely beg to differ, Benghazi.

[callmeslick]

gets back, Pud, to the amount of stuff on the plate of the POTUS, small stuff happens.....like the Cole bombing on Clinton's watch or 9/11 on Bushs...hmmm.

[HappyHappy]

gets back, Pud, to the amount of stuff on the plate of the POTUS, small stuff happens.....like the Cole bombing on Clinton's watch or 9/11 on Bushs...hmmm.

Aside from the tinfoil hat crowd I do not remember a coverup on the Cole bombing or 9/11.

HH

[Pudfark]

gets back, Pud, to the amount of stuff on the plate of the POTUS, small stuff happens.....like the Cole bombing on Clinton's watch or 9/11 on Bushs...hmmm.

One problem with that type of thinking. There were several months of advance notice in Benghazi. By the way, who is responsible for Benghazi and who gave the "stand down" order?

What seems apparent on the POTUS plate is listening and prying into everyone's business, blackmailing them and or using the IRS as your own personal tool to destruct/obstruct them. It's no wonder he has no time for the "small stuff".

[Reservoir_Dog]

I politely beg to differ, Benghazi.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-575 ... -promised/

[Pudfark]

Here ya go R_D.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162- ... tigations/

Same source...

[Reservoir_Dog]

Here ya go R_D.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162- ... tigations/

Same source...

Doesn't surprise me a bit.
CBS is a reputable, completely unbiased news source. (unlike a certain well known, less than reputable, totally biased news source we all know and love)

I didn't see Benghazi in your link. Sure you got the right thread?