Real leadership

Onceler

New member
Seems like a good Bush-bashing kind of day. I was thinking back to Bush's vague 2000 campaign, where, aside from promising to cut taxes, the only real specifics were being a "leader" (pronounced "leaderrrr") and a "uniter." We can all have a good laugh about the "uniter" part, but I realize that many on the right still consider Bush a good "leaderrr", because he is unwavering on Iraq. Many on the left & in the middle consider this psychotic, but I thought I would address what I personally would have looked for in a leader over the past few years to counter such claims:

To me, a leader would:

- Look for every reason NOT to go to war before committing our forces, instead of cherrypicking conflicting evidence to try to “sell” a war

-Not get hung up in the minutia of the day-to-day operation in a war, but WOULD ensure that major decisions like “disbanding the Iraq army” were not done without his clearance

- Talk about working with Democrats, Republicans & opposing viewpoints, and then actually follow through with that. Real leaders are not afraid of dissent or compromise.

- Be secure in himself to the point where he doesn’t always have to remind everyone that he is the “leader” and the “decider”

- Admit mistakes, and take accountability

- Be PROACTIVE about addressing potential crises, instead of, say, continuing their vacation while a hypothetical hurricane floods & destroys a major American city

- Place competence & performance above personal loyalty when hiring & firing key personnel in their administration

- Be able to communicate ideas articulately & with clarity

Real leaders also don't openly challenge our enemies to try to kill more American soldiers.

In short, Bush has really sucked...
 
Seems like a good Bush-bashing kind of day. I was thinking back to Bush's vague 2000 campaign, where, aside from promising to cut taxes, the only real specifics were being a "leader" (pronounced "leaderrrr") and a "uniter." We can all have a good laugh about the "uniter" part, but I realize that many on the right still consider Bush a good "leaderrr", because he is unwavering on Iraq. Many on the left & in the middle consider this psychotic, but I thought I would address what I personally would have looked for in a leader over the past few years to counter such claims:

To me, a leader would:

- Look for every reason NOT to go to war before committing our forces, instead of cherrypicking conflicting evidence to try to “sell” a war

-Not get hung up in the minutia of the day-to-day operation in a war, but WOULD ensure that major decisions like “disbanding the Iraq army” were not done without his clearance

- Talk about working with Democrats, Republicans & opposing viewpoints, and then actually follow through with that. Real leaders are not afraid of dissent or compromise.

- Be secure in himself to the point where he doesn’t always have to remind everyone that he is the “leader” and the “decider”

- Admit mistakes, and take accountability

- Be PROACTIVE about addressing potential crises, instead of, say, continuing their vacation while a hypothetical hurricane floods & destroys a major American city

- Place competence & performance above personal loyalty when hiring & firing key personnel in their administration

- Be able to communicate ideas articulately & with clarity

Real leaders also don't openly challenge our enemies to try to kill more American soldiers.

In short, Bush has really sucked...

There is something about a list like this that just sounds like nonsense to bush voters...or worse, dangerous.
 
But what about the Declaration of Independence?

It says that leadership should come from the American people, not politicians. In fact it says it is our duty and responsibility.
 
Seems like a good Bush-bashing kind of day. I was thinking back to Bush's vague 2000 campaign, where, aside from promising to cut taxes, the only real specifics were being a "leader" (pronounced "leaderrrr") and a "uniter." We can all have a good laugh about the "uniter" part, but I realize that many on the right still consider Bush a good "leaderrr", because he is unwavering on Iraq. Many on the left & in the middle consider this psychotic, but I thought I would address what I personally would have looked for in a leader over the past few years to counter such claims:

To me, a leader would:

- Look for every reason NOT to go to war before committing our forces, instead of cherrypicking conflicting evidence to try to “sell” a war

-Not get hung up in the minutia of the day-to-day operation in a war, but WOULD ensure that major decisions like “disbanding the Iraq army” were not done without his clearance

- Talk about working with Democrats, Republicans & opposing viewpoints, and then actually follow through with that. Real leaders are not afraid of dissent or compromise.

- Be secure in himself to the point where he doesn’t always have to remind everyone that he is the “leader” and the “decider”

- Admit mistakes, and take accountability

- Be PROACTIVE about addressing potential crises, instead of, say, continuing their vacation while a hypothetical hurricane floods & destroys a major American city

- Place competence & performance above personal loyalty when hiring & firing key personnel in their administration

- Be able to communicate ideas articulately & with clarity

Real leaders also don't openly challenge our enemies to try to kill more American soldiers.

In short, Bush has really sucked...
Trivia time!
Who vetoed more of the other parties bills? Clinton to Repubs or Bush to Dems?

Face it with the largest ever increase in education, the pill bill, the NEA spending increase, and so on, there is no bill of Dems or idea of Liberals (like the pill bill) that Bush did not pass.
 
"Trivia time!
Who vetoed more of the other parties bills? Clinton to Repubs or Bush to Dems?"

Would you really argue that Clinton did NOT work with the Republican Congress, and that Bush has made more of an effort with Democrats?

Also, the thread really has very little, if anything at all, to do with Clinton, though I do understand the involuntary utterance of the word "Clinton" whenever Bush voters are backed into a corner with the harsh glare of reality....
 
"Trivia time!
Who vetoed more of the other parties bills? Clinton to Repubs or Bush to Dems?"

Would you really argue that Clinton did NOT work with the Republican Congress, and that Bush has made more of an effort with Democrats?

Also, the thread really has very little, if anything at all, to do with Clinton, though I do understand the involuntary utterance of the word "Clinton" whenever Bush voters are backed into a corner with the harsh glare of reality....

Very funny coming from you. My thread had little to do with Bush, but when faced with a the blinding glare of reality YOU turned to bashing Bush.

That said, Clinton most certainly did work with the Rep Congress. Especially in his second term.
 
"Trivia time!
Who vetoed more of the other parties bills? Clinton to Repubs or Bush to Dems?"

Would you really argue that Clinton did NOT work with the Republican Congress, and that Bush has made more of an effort with Democrats?
Yes I would, remember the government shutdown in the 90's? Even the Repubs most popular bill - welfare reform - Clinton vetoed that twice.

Also, the thread really has very little, if anything at all, to do with Clinton, though I do understand the involuntary utterance of the word "Clinton" whenever Bush voters are backed into a corner with the harsh glare of reality....
Not at all, but concepts are always best put into comparitive perspective. You say Bush is bad - well bad compared to whom?

What Bush has really proven is that Liberalism isn't any more of a success under a Repub president than under a Dem president.
 
Very funny coming from you. My thread had little to do with Bush, but when faced with a the blinding glare of reality YOU turned to bashing Bush.

.

YOU brought up Bush & Bush-bashing on your thread first - not me.

How could I expect you to know that when you're such an idiot, though?
 
"You say Bush is bad - well bad compared to whom?"

I said that - bad based on the criteria I have for leadership.

This isn't really about ideas so much as it's about competence.

Quite a few Republicans give Clinton credit for working with them in the '90's, btw. Were you pre-adolescent at that time?
 
"You say Bush is bad - well bad compared to whom?"

I said that - bad based on the criteria I have for leadership.

This isn't really about ideas so much as it's about competence.

Quite a few Republicans give Clinton credit for working with them in the '90's, btw. Were you pre-adolescent at that time?

Good point. Republicans are honest about when Clinton DID work with them and give him credit.
Dems on the other hand have a president who has vetoed virtually nothing of theirs and passed everything they asked for (this was the Rove strategy), yet they dishonestly pretend he is some partisan asshole who is against them on everything.
 
Good point. Republicans are honest about when Clinton DID work with them and give him credit.
Dems on the other hand have a president who has vetoed virtually nothing of theirs and passed everything they asked for (this was the Rove strategy), yet they dishonestly pretend he is some partisan asshole who is against them on everything.


Bush has vetoed legislation this year.

Before this year, the Democrats weren't in charge of Congress.

Man, are you stupid...
 
Bush has vetoed legislation this year.
Oh very good dumbass, he did veto 2 or 3 whole bills so far - that would be why I used the words "virtually nothing".
Clinton vetoed close to 40
http://www.laits.utexas.edu/gov310/PRES/presvetoes/index.html

And as you can see by the chart Bush is very low in vetoes compared to any president, like Bush or not and I don't either, the plain fact is he has barely stopped a thing Dems proposed and got through Congress.

Before this year, the Democrats weren't in charge of Congress.
Man, are you stupid...
Are you stupid?
A) The Dems were in charge of the senate for nearly 2 years when Jeffords bolted in early 2001
B) Does your dumbass realize that parties out of power can propose bills that if enough of the other party supports it (which is never too hard when you have way more Liberal Repubs than Conservative Dems), then it will pass and be sent to the prez?

Fucking lying retard.
 
I don't know - maybe it's just me, but "virtually nothing" means "virtually nothing" when I read it.

It's kind of silly to try to compare Bush to Clinton at this stage with regard to working with the opposition party. Granted, Bush hasn't HAD to for most of his term, and the 51% strategy was in place on plenty of bills & initiatives.

As usual, even people on your ideological side would laugh at you for making such an assertion.

That said, my point about working with Dems & Republicans & opposing viewpoints have a lot to do with Iraq, where Bush has made very public, verifiable statements trying to sell the public that he's willing to listen & work with those who don't agree with him, and most certainly, has not.

But please accept this invitation to continue embarassing yourself....
 
YOU brought up Bush & Bush-bashing on your thread first - not me.

How could I expect you to know that when you're such an idiot, though?

I mentioned it with regards to the lack of response, meaning all you idiots were on the bush bashing threads and trying to skim over the Dem corruption. Then you came on the thread and tried to turn it into a .... well this isn't as bad as what bush did with Iraq... bullshit.

But please moron, continue to act like you hold the higher ground. Continue to be the hypocrit that you are. It is no big deal... it was just a Dem that did it.
 
I mentioned it with regards to the lack of response, meaning all you idiots were on the bush bashing threads and trying to skim over the Dem corruption. Then you came on the thread and tried to turn it into a .... well this isn't as bad as what bush did with Iraq... bullshit.
.

EXACTLY. Because you made such an issue of why someone like me posts more about a guy like Bush than about something Diane Feinstein is trying to slip through Congress. I tried to illustrate for you how much more Bush's actions have affected my life & my country (unfortunately, to no avail).

Haven't you embarassed yourself enough for one day?
 
EXACTLY. Because you made such an issue of why someone like me posts more about a guy like Bush than about something Diane Feinstein is trying to slip through Congress. I tried to illustrate for you how much more Bush's actions have affected my life & my country (unfortunately, to no avail).

Haven't you embarassed yourself enough for one day?

Face it Lorax, Superfreak nailed you, it's this board's biggest open secret that Bush/Iraq should be used as the trump card on any debate a lefty is losing on or even just challenged a bit on regarding ANYTHING their own party did.
 
Face it Lorax, Superfreak nailed you, it's this board's biggest open secret that Bush/Iraq should be used as the trump card on any debate a lefty is losing on or even just challenged a bit on regarding ANYTHING their own party did.

No; I nailed Superfreak. I guarantee that he didn't know that it wasn't me that brought up Bush first on his thread, as he insinuated.

You're just grasping for a life preserver. Can't blame ya...
 
EXACTLY. Because you made such an issue of why someone like me posts more about a guy like Bush than about something Diane Feinstein is trying to slip through Congress. I tried to illustrate for you how much more Bush's actions have affected my life & my country (unfortunately, to no avail).

Haven't you embarassed yourself enough for one day?

You continue to act as though I should be embarrassed for pointing out something bad the Dems are trying to do to the Vets, simply because it is not as bad as what Bush has done. Gee what a great benchmark you are setting. So long as the corruption and ineptitude isn't as bad as Bush... who cares?

THAT should embarass you... not me.
 
Back
Top