Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by friendorfoe, May 17, 2011.
In other words you don't vote?
James Lankford, all those people you referenced do contribute to society, they pay taxes. Lloyd Blankfein wouldn't be paid like that unless he was making his company money, employing people who can in turn pay taxes not to mention spend that money which creates jobs. In other words, contribute to society.
In all seriousness, I am sorry that you had to go through that growing up. I'm especially sorry your mom was abused like that, but that doesn't mean that higher income earners should pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes while 51% of our population pays nothing.
Name calling is unnecessary on this forum--there are plenty of other places for that. Frankly, I am less concerned about electing an "exciting" candidate than I am about one who has the experience and talent to get the job done. The country voted for "exciting" during the last election, so those who wanted to be excited by the candidate got what they asked for.
He can call me names all he'd like. Name calling is what people do when they lack a solid argument.
It was clearly a joke...only a moron wouldn't recognize that...
Excuse me I do work and am a diabetic ,not due to anything on my end, I try to eat well and all but cannot afford the drugs I need and work making to much to get Medicaid right now. Frankly I would prefer to buy insurance but no one will give me any I can afford to use. Alot of low income people are like me they work but don't make enough money for health care which to us is an issue after all if we were in many peer nations in Europe we would have taxes paid from our income to cover that. So we have a right to vote for those that will do things we want done the same as anyone else our vote is as good as yours or the richest most powerful person in the nation. What choice do we have this law or nothing for me the choice is clear I need health care.
As for the law the courts will decide that they could cut out the mandate the provision that most of the critics find offensive then the health care regulators will have to act adding measures to compel people to get insurance. But the rest of the law is fully inside the powers of the Federal government they can tax, regulate commerce, set insurance guidelines, set rules for Medicare and Medicaid and spend money on education funded by the Federal government. What right will they have to overturn the whole law when most of it is fine under precedents, the mandate could also be upheld. You know they could consider it a special market that is state and Federal so warrants inclusion into the interstate commerce clause as a new limited power to that market.
Anyway it will be decided in 2012 one way or another.
Yes, of course! When Obama was 4 days old, he faked his certificate of live birth because he knew he would run for president one day!! I think you and I are finally starting to understand each other. :wink: :jester:
It's like in sports when you can sometimes blame the coach/manager, sometimes blame the players, but most of the time the blame goes to both and it usually not clear who is more at fault. Mind you, my being apolitical allows me to avoid the game of saying that a politician is doing a "bad job" simply because his decisions are contrary to my ideology (see YouTube - Rush Limbaugh: "I hope Obama fails", where Rush Limbaugh unequivocally expresses how he wants the president to fail).
However, Obama came rushing in on a wave of promises to do exactly what he hasn't even attempted to do. How can anyone trust that next time around, he actually means what he says?
Can we call it even now? The next person to strike gets an unpaid vacation.
Jesus, does anyone here have the ability to recognize a joke? My comment was clearly meant to be numerous. Just to be clear, I know Obama is a citizen.
The irony of your rhetorical question amuses me :smile:
Well stated Anthony!
How often have we witnessed those who’ve attained leadership positions merely because of the personal trait of charisma? All too often, charisma has more to do with the attainment of the position vs. professional competence or more importantly … the ability to lead. There’s the old adage, we might believe we know who we’ve hired, promoted, elected, etc., but who’s the personality that really shows up?
“The test of a leader lies in the reaction and response of his followers. His worth as a leader is measured by the achievements of the led . . . the ultimate test of his effectiveness.” —Gen Omar N. Bradley.
Leaders see leadership as a duty, rather than as rank or privilege. When things go wrong (and they always do) they don’t fault others. Real leaders will uniformly reject exhibiting the victim attitude or blame game behavior. Harry Truman's simple saying, "The buck stops here" may best sum up what a true leader's mind-set should be.
A requirement of an effective leader is his /her capacity to earn trust! If not, there will be no legitimate followers – and a leader must have followers. To be trusted does not necessarily mean you will be liked (e.g., nAff /need for affiliation) or be fashionable; it does not mean that all will agree with you (many times they won’t). But people who will trust you will know that you mean what you say, and that your purported beliefs are in sync with your actions (e.g., the ‘say’ and the ‘do’ will match). Followers consider and expect that a leader possess something very "traditional" called integrity.
According to Padilla et al. (2007) citing Conger (1990); Hogan et al. (1990); Howell & Avolio (1992); and O'Connor et al. (1995), most scholarly analyses of destructive leadership identify charisma as a central characteristic; but not all charismatic leaders are destructive. Even so, destructive leaders in general are charismatic. Consider the following list: in government, Hitler, Stalin, Charles Taylor; in business, John Delorean, Joe Nacchio, Jeff Skilling; in religious cults, Charles Manson, Jim Jones, and David Koresh. Research indicates that well known destructive leaders seem by and large to be considered charismatic (Padilla et al., 2007).
According to Dr. Robert Hogan, “… the way you spell charismatic is narcissist. Charisma is not an attribute of good leadership. However, charismatic people who are defective leaders nonetheless attract followers, build a political base, and appear to be competent. Only after they have taken over leadership, do we learn that they are truly defective and incompetent as leaders” (Noll, 2008). Per well-known leadership consultant and author Peter Drucker …"Leadership: More Doing than Dash”.
Padilla, A., Hogan, R. & Kaiser, R. (2007): The toxic triangle: destructive leaders, susceptible followers,
and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 176-194.
Noll, D. (2008). Incompetent and defective leadership–An epidemic. Zimbio.
Its not hard Obama got in wanting to do certain things then got in and found he didn't have the ability or support to enact them plus like most proper presidents trusted his advisors both Congressional leaders and committees and others. Who says the big stimulus package didn't save jobs the economy could be worse by far without it or maybe not is that his fault or the fault of Congress they wrote the bill and put the money there.
All I know is for me they finally passed a health care law that helps me and did not make things worse economically, so the Democrats and Obama are fine in my book. Then I see what Governor Scott and the Republicans are doing to those in need in Florida while helping certain business interests since no one can stop them and they are hurting the poor and fighting the health care reform so are horrible in my view. Its not encouraging me in any way to vote for any Republicans.
Because God for bid someone require you to work for what you get. You know, actually EARN it. no, you prefer your handouts.
While I agree that abuses exist, some may actually need assistance.
Gov. Rick Scott orders immediate cuts to programs for disabled - Orlando Sentinel
It sucks, but don't act like this was the only agency affected by the cuts. Cuts were made to multiple agencies. Beyond that, they are running a $170m budget deficit. Good for Gov. Scott making the hard choices. No matter where he made cuts people were going to be pissed.
"Change unconstrained by prudence produces unpredictable consequences…" (Levin, 2009, p.51).
I have a great way to help coastal cities with their budgets. They should stop hiring lifeguards for their beaches. Because God forbid anyone drowning actually swim to his own life preserver. You know, actually EARN their survival? No, you prefer your handouts.
Speaking of which, why is so much tax payer money going to the fire department? Protection from fire is NOT a right. If people are too lazy to take care of their own houses, or can't afford their own hoses, water and rescue equipment then how is it my responsibility to do it for them?
Oh, and don't get me started on all the money going into traffic signals and road signs. How is it my responsibility to pay for everyone else's safety? Better yet, if people are too lazy to earn enough money to buy a hovercar, why is it me who has to have his tax money funneled into fixing potholes and bridges?
The other week I noticed a burglar being arrested outside of my neighbor's house. I couldn't help but to seethe in anger over why my neighbor didn't just capture the guy himself, rather than relying on an expensive government hand out. Now the burglar will go to prison, costing me even more money. If my neighbor is too lazy to build a dungeon in his basement, then why should I have to pay for the burglars incarceration?
I'm not even going to bother to attempt a reply. Moving forward my replies to your posts will be the same I give my kid sister when she says something in an attempt to disagree with me. Ummm I think I know better than you, I go to Harvard.
Separate names with a comma.