What We Look For In Our Leaders

[WillowTree]

1.) The Ayers, Wright, and Soros connections have already been more than talked about. The truth of those connections are out there.

2.) Czar is just another word for Advisor.

3.) I can count least two racists on your friends list here at USMB, should you be considered to be "paling" around with racists?

give it up dogshit, Ayers, Wright, and Soros,, are his bestest buds, he wouldn't be in dc if not for them.. he's a marxist through and through.

So what!?!?!

Some of my best friends have been total wingnuts.

Just because you associate with and listen to other people's opinions doesn't mean that you agree with them.

Oh sorry, I forgot, I'm talking to wingnuts, I forgot you do tend to join whatever crowd gets you stirred up a bit.

I know it's hard for you to believe, but some people actually are independant thinkers.

too bad you don't happen to be one of them.. lemming.

 

[mudwhistle]

1.) The Ayers, Wright, and Soros connections have already been more than talked about. The truth of those connections are out there.

2.) Czar is just another word for Advisor.

3.) I can count least two racists on your friends list here at USMB, should you be considered to be "paling" around with racists?

give it up dogshit, Ayers, Wright, and Soros,, are his bestest buds, he wouldn't be in dc if not for them.. he's a marxist through and through.

So what!?!?!

Some of my best friends have been total wingnuts.

Just because you associate with and listen to other people's opinions doesn't mean that you agree with them.

Oh sorry, I forgot, I'm talking to wingnuts, I forgot you do tend to join whatever crowd gets you stirred up a bit.

I know it's hard for you to believe, but some people actually are independant thinkers.

Association is one thing but in many of these cases he declared them as his closest advisers.

That's a bit different.

 

[Gadawg73]

It amazes me how the wing nuts stand behind the thesis that government should not do anything in the private corporate sector yet when corporate interests fuck up they claim it is government that should step in, lead and fix it.
How convenient to straddle the fence.
Presidents do not fix oil spills.

 

[mudwhistle]

It amazes me how the wing nuts stand behind the thesis that government should not do anything in the private corporate sector yet when corporate interests fuck up they claim it is government that should step in, lead and fix it.
How convenient to straddle the fence.
Presidents do not fix oil spills.

I think you're confused.

That's the other thread.

This one is about leadership traits and Obama's associations. Many of which would keep him from getting a security clearance because many of them have been involved in planning the overthrow of the government.

 

[RadiomanATL]

How about a reluctance to be a leader? Feeling that they must for the greater good, and not for themselves?

I'm always suspicious of those who have seemingly geared their whole life for a run at the top spot.

 

[mudwhistle]

How about a reluctance to be a leader? Feeling that they must for the greater good, and not for themselves?

I'm always suspicious of those who have seemingly geared their whole life for a run at the top spot.

The last one I know of that was like that was George Washington.

 

[RadiomanATL]

How about a reluctance to be a leader? Feeling that they must for the greater good, and not for themselves?

I'm always suspicious of those who have seemingly geared their whole life for a run at the top spot.

The last one I know of that was like that was George Washington.

I'd be willing to throw Lincoln, Wilson and Truman in that category as well.

Although looking back on what I said, I should have phrased it better. It's not the reluctance to be a leader, it's the reluctance to fuck things up because you are the leader....

...still not wording it right...it's late....

....How about the knowledge of what responsibilities the position actually entails prior to running for it, and feeling the weight of that responsibility on your shoulders before you even win, and the dangers a small mis-step could make?

Still not sure if I am accurately conveying the thought.

 

[WillowTree]

It amazes me how the wing nuts stand behind the thesis that government should not do anything in the private corporate sector yet when corporate interests fuck up they claim it is government that should step in, lead and fix it.
How convenient to straddle the fence.
Presidents do not fix oil spills.

Then perhaps he should sit down then and shut the fuck up.. but no,, you know what he is gonna do??? he will make them his enemy and demonize the shit out of them while riding around in his fucking SUV and flying aboard his af1.. that's because he is an asswipe.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Nope...we've been trying to tell everyone this same shit for over 2 years and you never listened.

mud you two havent even been here a year yet.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

The President and Speaker get 6 'yes''s from me, Reid gets 5 out of 6. GW Bush gets 1 yes out of six (O.K. he seems like a fun guy to get drunk with) and Cheney gets 0 out of 6.


Any other stupid questions?

i was right....the H stands for Hack....anyone who gives Pelosi and Reid that much credit.....is a leftist Hack....

 

[MKDavis]

This one is about leadership traits and Obama's associations. Many of which would keep him from getting a security clearance because many of them have been involved in planning the overthrow of the government.

You may wish to examine the security clearance standards more closely. This canard was debunked by the St. Petersburg Times last October 10th (see politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/800/].

QUESTION: "List foreign national relatives whom you or your spouse are bound by affection, obligation, or close and continuing contact"

RESPONSE: Obama is not bound to his father or stepfather because both are deceased, nor is he bound "by affection, obligation, or close and continuing contact" to his relatives in Africa.

QUESTION: "Have you ever been an officer or a member or made a contribution to an organization dedicated to the violent overthrow of the United States Government and which engages in illegal activities to that end, knowing that the organization engages in such activities with the specific intent to further such activities? Have you ever knowingly engaged in any acts or activities designed to overthrow the United States Government by force?"

RESPONSE: Obama could truthfully answer "no," because he was neither a member nor contributed to such organizations. Neither serving alongside William Ayers, nor granting funding to Khaladi's group meets the disqualifying criteria. Associating with members of a disqualifying group does NOT disqualify a candidate for a security clearance, nor does his association with Rev. Wright or Frank Marshall Davis. Security clearance criteria evaluate the subject's participation in subversive organizations, not guilt by associating with members. Further, activity younger than 16 is specifically excluded from consideration (see tpub.com/content/aviation/14243/css/14243_219.htm).

The SF86, Questionnaire for National Security Positions, can be downloaded at opm.gov/Forms/pdf_fill/sf86.pdf. Question 29, Association Record, asks about disqualifying associations.

Then are we in agreement?

- Obama would not need to report those "questionable" associations because he was neither a member of, nor contributed to, disqualifying organizations.

Despite continuing right-wing disinformation, Barack Obama would meet the eligibility criteria for access to TS/SCI (SI/TK/G/B et al.) information. Despite continuing right-wing disinformation, his association with radicals does not render him ineligible for access. Despite continuing right-wing disinformation, candidates are assessed by examining THEIR actions, not the actions of their associates. Despite continuing right-wing disinformation, "guilt by association" is an invalid basis for adjudicating security clearances.

 

[uscitizen]

What We Look For In Our Leaders


Charisma, nice face and legs, a beer drinking buddy?

 

[Foxfyre]

Sadly, I think most folks these days just look for somebody who isn't the bunch in office that's f*cking up the country now.

And because so many are feeling a little desperate, they take a chance on any pretty face or any good bullshitter or just somebody who makes them weak in the knees or makes them laugh.

I don't think leadership ability is given a whole lot of attention.

 

[Douger]

You've never had any leaders. Only mis-leaders.

 

[MKDavis]

"I'll give you a few of the names of his friends.

William Ayers - Domestic Terrorist

George Soros, Tony Rezko - Criminals

Rev. Jeremiah Wright - Racist

Frank Marshall Davis - Communist"

Please provide primary source evidence that Rezco and Ayers were Obama's "friends," Rev. Wright is a racist, and Soros is a criminal. Specifics please! An association does not a "friend" make!

Mainstream media ignores such claims because they are unsubstantiated accusations. For example, AIM's "Obama's Communist Mentor" is a travesty of journalism.

 

[Avatar4321]

If you don't have the integrity to do what's right no matter what the sacrifice, then I don't want you to be my leader. If I can't trust you, why should I follow you?

 

[MKDavis]

If you don't have the integrity to do what's right no matter what the sacrifice, then I don't want you to be my leader. If I can't trust you, why should I follow you?

I admire the concept, but problems arise due to differing opinions as to what is right, because values change as societies evolve. Sometimes we go backwards, as evidenced by the Bush administration's use of waterboarding, which legal precedent had already established as "torture." Some leaders may want to overlook war crimes because prosecution would be too controversial, and might endanger projects they consider more important. They will compromise their integrity and take the path of least resistance.

Integrity should not be very difficult for journalists, however, because the Society of Professional Journalists has a Code of Ethics (spj.org/ethicscode.asp). Some disinformation sources, such as AIM, WND, and others, flout the Code of Ethics in their disinformation campaigns. They seem to subscribe to the Straussian concept of the "noble lie." In effect, they have become an Orwellian Ministry of Truth.

While originators' culpability is irrefutable, they cause unwitting people to spread such disinformation throughout the blogosphere. Such recycling may be attributed to "confirmation bias," wherein people are predisposed to believing falsehoods that reinforce an existing bias (e.g., "Protocols of the Elders of Zion").

When unwitting people spread such lies, disinformation becomes simple misinformation. Although their motivation may differ, the result is just as rancid. Unfortunately, such myths may be exaggerated with each retelling, in an expanding spiral of viral disinformation.

Mudwhistle's post in this thread (#5/9) probably falls in this second category, where s/he accuses Obama of being friends with terrorists, racists, criminals, etc. Upon closer scrutiny, however, we will find that these are just unsubstantiated accusations, characteristic of the smear campaign against Barack Obama.

For example: While there is compelling evidence that Rev. Wright is anti-Zionist, propagandists dishonestly equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism -- ignoring, for example anti-Zionist Jews. Through faulty generalization, they equate both attitudes. This is as illogical as saying that someone who dislikes rap music must be racist, despite compelling evidence that many blacks do not even care for rap.

Let's see if Mudwhistle's integrity produces an honest answer. When challenged on their indefensible positions, some dishonest people will stonewall. Others will tap-dance, evade, make ad hominem attacks, and utilize red herrings.

Those with integrity will address the issue directly. In the absence of compelling evidence, they will admit their mistakes. That's one element of integrity.

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened."
- Sir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965)

 

[mudwhistle]

This one is about leadership traits and Obama's associations. Many of which would keep him from getting a security clearance because many of them have been involved in planning the overthrow of the government.

You may wish to examine the security clearance standards more closely. This canard was debunked by the St. Petersburg Times last October 10th (see politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/800/].

QUESTION: "List foreign national relatives whom you or your spouse are bound by affection, obligation, or close and continuing contact"

RESPONSE: Obama is not bound to his father or stepfather because both are deceased, nor is he bound "by affection, obligation, or close and continuing contact" to his relatives in Africa.

QUESTION: "Have you ever been an officer or a member or made a contribution to an organization dedicated to the violent overthrow of the United States Government and which engages in illegal activities to that end, knowing that the organization engages in such activities with the specific intent to further such activities? Have you ever knowingly engaged in any acts or activities designed to overthrow the United States Government by force?"

RESPONSE: Obama could truthfully answer "no," because he was neither a member nor contributed to such organizations. Neither serving alongside William Ayers, nor granting funding to Khaladi's group meets the disqualifying criteria. Associating with members of a disqualifying group does NOT disqualify a candidate for a security clearance, nor does his association with Rev. Wright or Frank Marshall Davis. Security clearance criteria evaluate the subject's participation in subversive organizations, not guilt by associating with members. Further, activity younger than 16 is specifically excluded from consideration (see tpub.com/content/aviation/14243/css/14243_219.htm).

The SF86, Questionnaire for National Security Positions, can be downloaded at opm.gov/Forms/pdf_fill/sf86.pdf. Question 29, Association Record, asks about disqualifying associations.

Then are we in agreement?

- Obama would not need to report those "questionable" associations because he was neither a member of, nor contributed to, disqualifying organizations.

Despite continuing right-wing disinformation, Barack Obama would meet the eligibility criteria for access to TS/SCI (SI/TK/G/B et al.) information. Despite continuing right-wing disinformation, his association with radicals does not render him ineligible for access. Despite continuing right-wing disinformation, candidates are assessed by examining THEIR actions, not the actions of their associates. Despite continuing right-wing disinformation, "guilt by association" is an invalid basis for adjudicating security clearances.

Obama has a few friends that have committed violent acts against the United States. He also trained ACORN members which one of their goals is the peaceful overthrow of the government and to cause economic turmoil. These two issue alone would prevent him from getting a security clearance.

I held a TS clearance and I got flagged just because I was molested when I was 6. Any issue in one's past that could cause you to be resentful or hateful has to be investigated.

Obama's close friendship with Frank Davis is reason enough to keep him from getting a clearance of any kind. His visit to terrorist states in the Middle East would be the same. It doesn't take much. His family is another...but not exactly a good reason. Seems Bill Clinton couldn't get a clearance ether. Funny....Democrats seem to have serious issues when it comes to clearances.

 

[mudwhistle]

"I'll give you a few of the names of his friends.

William Ayers - Domestic Terrorist

George Soros, Tony Rezko - Criminals

Rev. Jeremiah Wright - Racist

Frank Marshall Davis - Communist"

Please provide primary source evidence that Rezco and Ayers were Obama's "friends," Rev. Wright is a racist, and Soros is a criminal. Specifics please! An association does not a "friend" make!

Mainstream media ignores such claims because they are unsubstantiated accusations. For example, AIM's "Obama's Communist Mentor" is a travesty of journalism.

I posted links.

Try clicking on them and friggen read what it says.

The MSM ignores them because they're in on it. They've lost their objectivity. Early in 09' they were actually having conference calls with Obama in the morning on how they were gonna spin the news to help him.

In a few seconds you could google this and find out what they were doing.

What do you consider to be Primary Source....a source from the MSM???

Are you fucken high????


You show people the facts and because it's not from Obama's state-run media sources they refuse to pay attention to it.

This is exactly how Hugo Chavez took over Venezuela. You bore me.....fucken mindless fool.

 

[mudwhistle]

When it comes to honesty....here are some things I'm sure you've forgotten.

Obama made several promises.

But the reality is this:

We are not any closer to closing GITMO.

We aren't out of Iraq.

Illegal Immigration has been put on the back burner till 2011.

What we are doing is taking over the private sector like Hugo Chavez did. The media is too biased to be trusted. Banks and companies are now under the thumb of the Democrats. Nearly 9 million jobs have been lost since Obama took office and no effort is being made to create any outside of the government. Divisions have been purposely caused to pit American against American. The only promise that Obama has fulfilled is he is punishing the rich.....unless they supported him or are his personal friends. And even some of them are catching hell.