President Obama should not have caved on Ebola Czar

[petch751]

Originally Posted by Perryview22

Halfway through his second term and still trying to please the implacable element in this country that hates
him.

So the same righties who were castigating the man for appointing so-called czars, pivoted and bullied him
into appointing one when they were running around like spooked chickens afraid of getting plucked by the
wrath of Ebola.

The same ones who have been spiritually lynching the man for acting like a dictator, all of the sudden wanted him to act unilaterally at some juncture on immigration or the debt ceiling man-made crisis.

When is he going to be done trying to appease these confederates. These people who are so afraid of threats to their social power and status in America (immigration)or so afraid of what they see as an exotic threat to their own lives (Ebola) all of the sudden want Obama to govern whenever it serves their seedy interests. Then everytime he does act upon being bullied, they attack the man for whatever he does.

He should have just stayed the course and refrained from making the appointment all of the scared, whiny, hate-infested elements in this country were bullying him into making.

I'd like "once" for him to be straight with the American people instead of lying all the time. That is a good start.

[Vector1]

Originally Posted by LexusNexus

You are certainly spot on about the Right and the party of Dixie.

Nice try(again), but factually you can never erase history. So while it is true the southern states now vote more for (R's) than (D's), there are still plenty of blue dog Democrats. Remember, just because a state may be red, all it takes is a simple majority. So it is not as if it is 95% (R) and only 5% (D).
More importantly, the Dixie comment implies slavery, segregation, KKK,, etc., but it was the (D) party that was responsible for that, and it was primarily the (R's) who fought against it.

Originally Posted by LexusNexus

President Obama has never acted to appease the Right, since the Right is always wrong about every damn thing.

Everything?
This comment alone just goes to show how partisan you are.

However you are right about one thing, Obama does not try to "appease the right" as in try to compromise in any genuine/meaningful way. If he did, then he would have been a much better leader akin to Clinton & Reagan to name a few.

Originally Posted by LexusNexus

He considers their viewpoint of course, but recognizes time and time again that aside from their inability to solve problems, they want HIM to fail.

He has already failed, so that ship has sailed.

The problem someone as partisan as you has is that you want to shift blame from your boy, and put it elsewhere. There is no doubt the (R) controlled House has opposed most of his agenda, just like they did when Newt & Co didn't care for Clinton's vision. The same is true of the (D's) when Tip O'Neal & Co didn't care for Reagan's vision. However that is politics, and good leaders need to adapt and compromise as both of the aforementioned presidents did.
So Obama, who is paralyzed in his own partisan stubbornness has made his bed due to his lack of leadership.

Originally Posted by LexusNexus

The Ebola crisis became a crisis, like every domestic agenda did under Republican Bush, because Republicans insisted on budget cuts. We'd have a vaccine by now if it weren't for Republicans in Congress. The situation calls for the President to act and he did so. Republicans are not the catalyst for the appointment of the czar.

Nothing the Republicans have said and continue to say about President Obama, is correct.

Once again you speak in absolutes as if Obama is the greatest president, and the evil (R's) are all to blame.

As to Ebola being due to (R) budget cuts, this has already been debunked. But before I get into that, let me point out something you should be aware of, but are probably to partisan to publicly admit. Bush poured tons of money into Africa to battle Aids and other issues plaguing the troubled continent. Even partisan (D) hacks say as much, and give his administration credit. So for you to rant about Bush and the (R's) regarding budget cuts in this area, it shows how far in left field you are.

Back to Ebola being due to (R's). For starters, you do realize that the (D's) have controlled Congress in the past, and had control of the entire government for Obama' first 2 years, right?
Did they pour all sorts of money into the various agencies that could put a stop to Ebola?
If not, why not, and why no mention of them being a reason for a lack of a vaccine?

More importantly, if the CDC & NIH under Obama spent their budget more wisely, they would have a ton more money to fight important things like Ebola. Instead it has been shown that all sorts of nonsense has been funded, some of which is partisan in nature. Our country cannot afford partisanship from either side when it comes to protecting our citizens, which is the primary responsibility of the federal government. That goes for defense not only militarily, but also to stop the potential of a pandemic in this country.

Lastly, you are so partisan, I suspect you lack knowledge or don't care about facts regarding this disease. But let me point out a few things and attach a partisan twist to help you see how absurd it is to blame it on an American political party.
The first known outbreak occurred back in the 1976 and ran until 1979. Who was president at that time?
Now if we wanted to end things right there, and use your asinine assertion, we could say that with (D's) having controlled the presidency and Congress for various times in the intervening decades, they are responsible for not having a vaccine for Ebola yet.

But lets continue. The next big outbreak was in 1994 and ran through 1997. Surely the Congress controlled by (D's) for many years during those two decades could have funded a discovery for an Ebola vaccine, right?
Also who was the president in 1994?
The next big outbreak occurred in 2000. Who was the president at that time?
Though it has been on and off since then, the next outbreak that is massive compared with all the others occurred in 2013 which is still going on today, and has infected close to 10,000 people in Africa that we know about.
Again, who was/is the president in 2013 and right now?

So if I wanted to play simple minded partisan politics, I could say the (D's) are the reason for Ebola because Carter, Clinton, and Obama were all presidents when the major outbreaks occurred. I could also correctly point out that the (D's) controlled Congress during significant parts of those decades, therefore it is the Democrats who are responsible for not enough funding for a Ebola vaccine.

Obviously that is an absurd notion, yet koolaid drinking (D's) are trying to assert it against the (R's) for political gain. Anyone who does so should be ashamed of themselves, but there seems to be a lack of that emotion among the partisan zealots of today.

`