Listen up Obama

[FFPCogs 863]

Has anyone read this letter yet? Well I for one couldn't agree more with what this REAL American has to say to our President.

Make sure to follow the link in the article linked below and read the whole letter

http://www.kitv.com/politics/2233810...il.html?hpt=T2

[INIT915 1,119]

That's what's great about America. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

[Goose 188]

Seriously, all the liberal hooligans who like to sit back and comment how they would save the world should sit back and read this.

Edited January 28, 2010 by Goose

[99subi 121]

Obama is the biggest joke puppet president ever! end thread

Edited January 28, 2010 by 99subi

[PFDRes47cue 653]

Based on his the fact that he won the job...I'd have to say that the majority of the country support him. If not...he probably would not be president.

[DOC22 1]

Based on his the fact that he won the job...I'd have to say that the majority of the country support him. If not...he probably would not be president.

There is an increasing number of people who voted for obama and now realize the errors of their ways, and now wouldn't vote for the guy for dog catcher!!!

[Guest Pktruck1]

Based on his the fact that he won the job...I'd have to say that the majority of the country support him. If not...he probably would not be president.

Well you also have to remember most conservatives (like myself) hated McCain. Now i did vote for McCain because honestly i knew what Obama was from day 1 however many conservatives i know just didn't vote. According to Rasmussen Obama's approval rating is 46% and his disapproval rating is 54%. 25% Strongly approves of him and 42% Strongly disapproves which is a -17. Many polls will be different than Rasmussen however all are roughly at the 48% approval rating.

[INIT915 1,119]

Well you also have to remember most conservatives (like myself) hated McCain. Now i did vote for McCain because honestly i knew what Obama was from day 1 however many conservatives i know just didn't vote. According to Rasmussen Obama's approval rating is 46% and his disapproval rating is 54%. 25% Strongly approves of him and 42% Strongly disapproves which is a -17. Many polls will be different than Rasmussen however all are roughly at the 48% approval rating.

48%? That's more than double George Bush's approval rating.

[grumpyff 1,159]

I vote Present

[helicopper 1,050]

Based on his the fact that he won the job...I'd have to say that the majority of the country support him. If not...he probably would not be president.

A majority of the people who voted in 2008 supported him, that is far less than a majority of the country. His "popular vote" was just under 70 million or a little more than 20% of the country.

[Guest ff101]

Based on his the fact that he won the job...I'd have to say that the majority of the country support him. If not...he probably would not be president.

Support or supportED?

[PFDRes47cue 653]

I understand that people have and are losing support for President Obama. However, he is the President and is not being threatened with impeachment. One possible reason for impeachment is that the Presidents behavior is grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office. If this was true he would be up for impeachment...he must be doing some things right or be "compatible" for the job. People will always have a difference of opinion. It is what makes forums exciting. IF we all agreed, there would not be much reason for forums.

[gamewell45 258]

No matter who runs for President most people always regret it. I remember how everyone complained that the last Bush was horrible because they said he was incompetent; everyone hated Clinton because of his womanizing and lying ways; Bush 1 was reviled because of the so-called "read my lips" syndrome, Reagan for contra-gate/ATC isse, Carter for the Tehran blunder, Ford for being unable to make a decision; Nixon, the Watergate issue and Johnson, the Vietnam debacle. Seems like Eisenhower was the only one to escape unscathed.

The point is, no matter who is president, people will find fault right or wrong with whatever they do. Whoever replaces Obama, whether it is in 3 years or another 7 will face the same criticism and scrutiny as Obama and those before him. That's politics folks!

[PFDRes47cue 653]

No matter who runs for President most people always regret it. I remember how everyone complained that the last Bush was horrible because they said he was incompetent; everyone hated Clinton because of his womanizing and lying ways; Bush 1 was reviled because of the so-called "read my lips" syndrome, Reagan for contra-gate/ATC isse, Carter for the Tehran blunder, Ford for being unable to make a decision; Nixon, the Watergate issue and Johnson, the Vietnam debacle. Seems like Eisenhower was the only one to escape unscathed.

The point is, no matter who is president, people will find fault right or wrong with whatever they do. Whoever replaces Obama, whether it is in 3 years or another 7 will face the same criticism and scrutiny as Obama and those before him. That's politics folks!

Agree 100% Well Put!

[EMSer 15]

Great letter!

Facebook users, join the Harold Estes Fan Page!

http://www.facebook.com/#/pages/Harold-B-Estes/195253037981?ref=mf

Edited January 29, 2010 by EMSer

[27east 19]

I understand that people have and are losing support for President Obama. However, he is the President and is not being threatened with impeachment. One possible reason for impeachment is that the Presidents behavior is grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office. If this was true he would be up for impeachment...he must be doing some things right or be "compatible" for the job. People will always have a difference of opinion. It is what makes forums exciting. IF we all agreed, there would not be much reason for forums.

What?

Who said anything about impeachment?

[FFEMTPD72 2]

Although the letter has the proper theme, many elements in it are misguided. It's important to appreciate that the President does many things to ease global tension. We cannot win taking hard-line stances anymore.

Also - Obama's approval ratings have started to rise again after the dip.

Edited January 29, 2010 by FFEMTPD72

[FFPCogs 863]

We cannot win taking hard-line stances anymore.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, as are we all. I have to say though that on the above point I disagree strongly. A hard line resolute determined stance is exactly what is needed now. If history has taught us anything it is that appeasement doesn't work. Our advesaries are not bound by our moral or constitutional constraints. They will not be bought off either. The more we give the more they will seek to take. Only through strength and a willingness to use that strength can we assure peace and the future security of this nation. Freedom is not now nor has it ever been free. Believing that radical fundamentalist Islamic terrorists, or maniacal tyrants such as Ahmadenijad or Kim il Sung will yeild to talk without the force to back it up is a dangerous fantasy that will cost far more in blood down the road than that which may be spilled now.

[INIT915 1,119]

You are of course entitled to your opinion, as are we all. I have to say though that on the above point I disagree strongly. A hard line resolute determined stance is exactly what is needed now. If history has taught us anything it is that appeasement doesn't work. Our advesaries are not bound by our moral or constitutional constraints. They will not be bought off either. The more we give the more they will seek to take. Only through strength and a willingness to use that strength can we assure peace and the future security of this nation. Freedom is not now nor has it ever been free. Believing that radical fundamentalist Islamic terrorists, or maniacal tyrants such as Ahmadenijad or Kim il Sung will yeild to talk without the force to back it up is a dangerous fantasy that will cost far more in blood down the road than that which may be spilled now.

Would you call the last 8 years of "hard-line stances" a success? And specifically with North Korea and Iran?

[99subi 121]

here we go with the "bush's fault" crap............

[INIT915 1,119]

here we go with the "bush's fault" crap............

We're discussing various foreign affairs policies, not "fault". Try and keep up if you can.

[99subi 121]

im retarted

Edited January 30, 2010 by 99subi

[FFEMTPD72 2]

You are of course entitled to your opinion, as are we all. I have to say though that on the above point I disagree strongly. A hard line resolute determined stance is exactly what is needed now. If history has taught us anything it is that appeasement doesn't work. Our advesaries are not bound by our moral or constitutional constraints. They will not be bought off either. The more we give the more they will seek to take. Only through strength and a willingness to use that strength can we assure peace and the future security of this nation. Freedom is not now nor has it ever been free. Believing that radical fundamentalist Islamic terrorists, or maniacal tyrants such as Ahmadenijad or Kim il Sung will yeild to talk without the force to back it up is a dangerous fantasy that will cost far more in blood down the road than that which may be spilled now.

I'm not advocating the use of generous appeasement tactics either.

What I am suggesting is that an approach like Obama's, which certainly differs in comparison to other times in our history, may be beneficial in the long run. His prose and rhetoric is based upon careful research into what would instigate the lowest amount of global damage.

Edited January 30, 2010 by FFEMTPD72

[FFPCogs 863]

Would you call the last 8 years of "hard-line stances" a success? And specifically with North Korea and Iran?

Yes actually I would, inasmuch as we alone can influence the situation without direct military action. Both regimes have faced a loss of access to technology vital to increasing their nuclear capabilities, as well as an upsurge in anti government resisitance from their populace..especially Iran..remember their latest "election". The cracks are forming. Both regimes have been isolated on the world stage, and in the case of N. Korea this stance worked towards bankrupting a teetering regime while containing them on the pennisula. As for Al Qeada and such, well we haven't been attacked at home since 9/11 have we? We have taken the fight to them and kept it off our shores.

Pulling out of Iraq now may yet prove to be a huge mistake as their instability will invite Iran to attempt to influence affairs due to Iraq's large Shi'ite population. Afghanistan is now the hot spot and here the overly long drawn out process to increase troop strength, along with the Iraq pullot are seen as signs of indecision or lack of committment that no President of the United States should portray. This only emboldens our current and any potential future enemies to continue the fight (or begin one) in the belief that we lack the resolve to finish it. The security of this nation does not lie solely on our shores, but on those of distant lands as well. Our enemies must never again think they can inflict a horrific tragedy like 9/11 without an immediate, resolute and overwhelming response.

During my employment in Iraq there was one sentiment that was repeatedly expressed by the troops I had the honor of working for. Even though the war was (is) unpopular, almost to a man they felt it was better to shed their blood in Iraq or Afghan or where ever than to have even one drop of American blood be shed at home again.

So yes as unpopular as it may be, I do believe that overall the "hard line stance" of the last 8 years was a success.

[INIT915 1,119]

If you honestly feel that way, especially about North Korea and Iran, then we have two very different interpretations of world politics.

Yes actually I would, inasmuch as we alone can influence the situation without direct military action. Both regimes have faced a loss of access to technology vital to increasing their nuclear capabilities, as well as an upsurge in anti government resisitance from their populace..especially Iran..remember their latest "election". The cracks are forming. Both regimes have been isolated on the world stage, and in the case of N. Korea this stance worked towards bankrupting a teetering regime while containing them on the pennisula. As for Al Qeada and such, well we haven't been attacked at home since 9/11 have we? We have taken the fight to them and kept it off our shores.

Pulling out of Iraq now may yet prove to be a huge mistake as their instability will invite Iran to attempt to influence affairs due to Iraq's large Shi'ite population. Afghanistan is now the hot spot and here the overly long drawn out process to increase troop strength, along with the Iraq pullot are seen as signs of indecision or lack of committment that no President of the United States should portray. This only emboldens our current and any potential future enemies to continue the fight (or begin one) in the belief that we lack the resolve to finish it. The security of this nation does not lie solely on our shores, but on those of distant lands as well. Our enemies must never again think they can inflict a horrific tragedy like 9/11 without an immediate, resolute and overwhelming response.

During my employment in Iraq there was one sentiment that was repeatedly expressed by the troops I had the honor of working for. Even though the war was (is) unpopular, almost to a man they felt it was better to shed their blood in Iraq or Afghan or where ever than to have even one drop of American blood be shed at home again.

So yes as unpopular as it may be, I do believe that overall the "hard line stance" of the last 8 years was a success.

[FFPCogs 863]

If you honestly feel that way, especially about North Korea and Iran,

Yes I do

then we have two very different interpretations of world politics.

On this we can definitely agree

[FFEMTPD72 2]

...signs of indecision or lack of committment that no President of the United States should portray. This only emboldens our current and any potential future enemies to continue the fight (or begin one) in the belief that we lack the resolve to finish it. The security of this nation does not lie solely on our shores, but on those of distant lands as well. Our enemies must never again think they can inflict a horrific tragedy like 9/11 without an immediate, resolute and overwhelming response.

These 'signs of indecision' and 'lack of commitment' are inevitable results of Obama's effort to revise our overall approach. Clearly, as INIT915 suggested, our past attempts have largely failed to bring any substantial change in global politics.

We often forget that the current administration is dealing with a massive crisis on the home-front as well. Informed decisions need to be made based on what is best for America in the long run, and there isn't room for the use of 'immediate, resolute and overwhelming' style tactics to instill fear in future global politics. We're only isolating ourselves by maintaining hard-line tactics.

During my employment in Iraq there was one sentiment that was repeatedly expressed by the troops I had the honor of working for. Even though the war was (is) unpopular, almost to a man they felt it was better to shed their blood in Iraq or Afghan or where ever than to have even one drop of American blood be shed at home again.

I'm quite sure this is the current administration's sentiment as well.

[FFPCogs 863]

These 'signs of indecision' and 'lack of commitment' are inevitable results of Obama's effort to revise our overall approach. Clearly, as INIT915 suggested, our past attempts have largely failed to bring any substantial change in global politics.

And that is exactly the point. We have retained our primacy on the world stage. For all the talk of the "damage" done by GW Bush in fact America is still the lone superpower that the rest of the world looks to for guidance and relies on in times of crisis. This standing was earned by generations of Americans who gave all to ensure our security and maintain our pre-eminient position in the global political arena.

We often forget that the current administration is dealing with a massive crisis on the home-front as well. Informed decisions need to be made based on what is best for America in the long run, and there isn't room for the use of 'immediate, resolute and overwhelming' style tactics to instill fear in future global politics. We're only isolating ourselves by maintaining hard-line tactics.

To believe that history does not repeat itself is to ask for trouble. Even in recent hisstory we have glaring examples of what weakness and appeasement offer. In the 1930's in the midst of the Great Depression America chose isolationism as Europe appeased Hitler and then erupted in war and Asia suffered under the relentless spread of the Japanese. We all know where that led. 470,000 dead Americans and 50 million dead worldwide all because tyrants percieved weakness from America and the European democracies. Flash forward to the late 1970s and the Carter administration. Our old nemesis Soviet Russia began an unprecedented military build up that undid much of what had been gained by Truman, Kennedy and even Johnson, who stood his ground in Vietnam which we now know in hindsight ultimately stopped the spread of communism in Asia.

Roosevelt knew we had to enter WW2 and we did albeit probably too late. Had we acted sooner against tyranny, they may never have been such a terrible catastrophe

Truman stood up to the Russians and Chinese in Korea...making America safer

Kennedy stood up to the Soviets over nuclear missles in Cuba...making America safer

Johnson stood up to communism is Asia...making America and our Asian allies safer

Nixon threatened nuclear war during the Yom Kippur war keeping the Russians out of the Middle East...thus saving Israel and ultimayely making America safer

Reagan refused to bow to increasing pressure and refused to yield to the "no nukes" crowd..as we now know his was the right choice which ended the Cold War making America safer

Do you see the trend.

Talk is fine but it must be tempered by an unwaivering willingness to use force when necessary...even at the risk of becoming isolated. The track record of the Democratic Party since Johnson has been one of talking when punching is in order, making America LESS safe in the world. It has fallen to the Republican administrations to set right the damage done by the Democrats peace through weakness one big happy family approach.

[INIT915 1,119]

These 'signs of indecision' and 'lack of commitment' are inevitable results of Obama's effort to revise our overall approach. Clearly, as INIT915 suggested, our past attempts have largely failed to bring any substantial change in global politics.

We often forget that the current administration is dealing with a massive crisis on the home-front as well. Informed decisions need to be made based on what is best for America in the long run, and there isn't room for the use of 'immediate, resolute and overwhelming' style tactics to instill fear in future global politics. We're only isolating ourselves by maintaining hard-line tactics.

I'm quite sure this is the current administration's sentiment as well.

I have to agree with you. The notion that either Iran or North Korea have changed their ways based on our recent past practices is laughable. Or, rather, it would be laughable if it wasn't so serious. Both continue to aggressively pursue nuclear arms, missile technology, not to mention the human rights violations and treatment of their own citizens. To suggest that things have changed the course due to the recent elections in Iran is just as absurd, in my humble opinion. There has been no regime change and the leaders of the opposition have, for the most part been jailed or executed. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704878904575030483299887178.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_world). It's that's success, I'd hate to see what we consider a failure!!!

[FFPCogs 863]

I'm quite sure this is the current administration's sentiment as well.

I'm sure it is as well, but sentiment alone will not suffice. Actions speak louder than words. Now is the time for the eagle not the dove.