An argument can be made that the US is currently a destabilizing force on the world stage. But not for the reason those IvyLeague-niks think.

Obama has shredded our military almost beyond recognition; he does not know how to lead; his foreign policy is virtually nonexistent; his domestic policy is divisive.

A ship without a rudder steaming full speed to "who knows where' is a hazard.

The cure? That's simple. Go to the polls and remove these hapless "liberal" idiots. May not be an "instant cure" but it's a start.

Hm.

When did the US last have a real leader in the presidency?

I want to suggest Clinton. I think, love or hate him, Clinton might have been the last real leader we had. Shrub and Obama both lean very heavily on advisors and do very little leading of their own (tons of vacations is part of the proof of that). And I think in both cases their respective parties love them.

Clinton wasn't well liked by either side, which sorta suggests to me that he was closer to being a leader than otherwise. I suspect he did what he felt was right for the moment, rather than what the party wanted.

Not that I necessarily liked Clinton (I'm not sure I would like anyone, honestly), but at least he was a leader.

Not that I necessarily liked Clinton (I'm not sure I would like
anyone, honestly), but at least he was a leader.

I would ask Monica Lewinsky and the rest of the never-ending Bimbo Parade about that.

And I'd be very reluctant to sing the praises of a president that bungled at least two opportunities to seize and/or kill Osama Bin Laden, which would have spared us the agonies of 9-11 and its aftermath.

The "economic boom" that democraps like to credit to Bill Clinton was, if you recall, the direct result of Republicans winning the House in 1994 (for the first time in roughly 40 years) and the Contract For America forcing Slick Willy to balance the budget and sign the Welfare Reform legislation.

Please remember that it was Slick Willie's idea to repeal Glass Steagal, which ended up being one of the main contributors to the Great "Recession" (Depression II) of 2009. The other main contributor - obviously - was Barack Obama and his idiotic "stimulus" programs.

As I said, I don't like him, but at least he was a leader.

Maybe a terrible one, but none-the-less, a leader.

I'll agree with that. I didn't agree with all of his policies but he was at least "presidential." The piece of garbage currently occupying the White House has such outward contempt for the American people.

Agreed with Vince that the 1990's boom had more to do with Newt Gingrich than it did with Bill Clinton. The thing we have to credit Clinton for, however, is that he was able to react to public opinion and pivot accordingly, and the results were good. You can bet that even if the GOP takes both houses next month -- and if they are capable of generating some sound economic policy (not guaranteed with shitheads like Boehner around) -- Obama will *not* work with them. He'll veto (or ignore) everything that arrives on his desk. He'll continue to legislate with his pen and phone, knowing how difficult it is for Congress to get a two-thirds majority to override his decisions. He'll continue his very focused effort to destroy the nation, because he is not only a communist socialist terrorist, but also a sociopath.

You can normally tell that a politician is a sociopath if they get involved in federal politics. At all. Because as far as I can tell, they're all sociopaths.

Obama will *not* work with them. He'll veto
(or ignore) everything that arrives on his desk. He'll continue to
legislate with his pen and phone, knowing how difficult it is for
Congress to get a two-thirds majority to override his decisions. He'll

continue his very focused effort to destroy the nation, because he is

not only a communist socialist terrorist, but also a sociopath.

Obama is even worse than you describe, IG
If you, or I, or any other "civilian" did *half* the things I could cite we would be indicted for TREASON.

Obama should not be impeached. He should be indicted and tried by a JURY (only 12 folks to convince in a criminal trial, and not 67 out of 100 in that travesty the Senate would call a "trial" were he to be impeached).

AND... the prosecution would have some "say" in who sits on that jury (it's called Voir Dire). As would the defense. And if I were the prosecutor, the one thing that would NOT be on the table would be a plea bargain.

Obama cannot be impeached or prosecuted, because racism. So there.

Any federal prosecutor can bring an "information" to the federal court having jurisdiction where that prosecutor works.

Obama could be charged under an "information" in a state not so "vigilant" about race being an issue, but rather prosecution of an alleged crime being **the** issue.

I don't think that the good folks of, say, Wyoming, would mind in the least.

I still think my dad had it right.
He was a strict believer in term limits for all elected officials.

Here is how he put it:
"Every politician should be limited to two terms.
One in office followed by one in prison."

Hm... probably the right approach there, vince-q.

Predictably, communist democrats are blaming the Ebola outbreak on the GOP, citing sequester cuts to the NIH's budget that would have otherwise been used for disease prevention.

ORLY?

[ http://tinyurl.com/ozn47c2 ]

Not only did we give the NIH *more* funding than Obama (may he die of Ebola) requested, but here's what they spent it on:

* $939,000 to study the mating habits of fruit flies

* $325,000 to study marriage habits

* $257,000 to build an online game to go with the White House garden

* $117,000 to find out that most chimpanzees are right handed

* $592,000 to study those same chimpanzees throwing poop around

* $181,000 to determine how cocaine enhances the sex life of quail

NIH funding was $30.15 billion this year, up from $17.84 billion in 2000.
But yeah, go ahead and blame Republicans.

NIH funding was $30.15 billion this year, up from $17.84 billion in
2000.
But yeah, go ahead and blame Republicans.

Just in the current fiscal year, the House initiated an increase in spending of $300 million for the CDC. More than the Obama budget requested.

How DARE those lying bastards...
But then, lib-tard-democraPs - to be expected from that ilk.

Bah.. private enterprise should have handled it anyway. Why should those hospitals have public funds to do what they ought to be doing anyway?

Most hospitals, at least back on the East Coast, are Sec. 501(c)3 charitable organizations (non-profit) and exist on insured patients and donations/endowments.

They are extremely nonpolitical and very much "into" community service (pro bono).

And I'm talking some seriously great hospitals, such as Einstein Medical Center, Hahnemann, Unv. of Pennsylvania, Temple Univ Hospital, Jefferson, etc.

And some of those are among the best teaching hospitals in the country.

Bah.. private enterprise should have handled it anyway. Why should
those hospitals have public funds to do what they ought to be doing
anyway?

Handled what? Ebola? It's (mostly) not here yet. (Though that could change quickly.) Needs to be handled in Africa.