Define leader …

Recently Obama leadership has been challenge and question…..

I have known many great and wonder individuals that I would consider leaders.
In the work place, on the sport and battle field, community, teachers, personal friends and faith base individuals each represented different leadership skills. This array of influence has shaped my definition of a leader and leadership characteristics.

Question: From what you know of Obama how does he match up to your leadership definition?

You are the leader of ****** threads. Is that what you are going for?

Wut

Belly35;716394 wrote:... Question: From what you know of Obama how does he match up to your leadership definition?

I did not vote for him because he had almost no qualifications. But once he was elected I will admit I hoped he would succeed in changing some of the status quo politico BS in DC. I must say to date I am thoroughly disappointed. I think his lack of leadership experience is now overshadowed by his actual lack of leadership ability.

This is the ultimate leader!




But he would be unelectable.

We couldn't afford his entitlement program, and his foreign policy would be unacceptable

Belly, I know you don't care one bit for Obama, but one of his leadership traits I am impressed with in his handling of foreign policy is his ability to gather information, analyze the situation and make decisions based on what's best for America. Take the Middle East, for example. Many of you here would have us rushing in to head up a no-fly zone or planning strategic missile strikes. Obama has waited for the world to agree on a course of action, rather than exhibit a "knee-jerk" response which no other country would support.

On the domestic front, I do wish he had been a bit more forceful on the issue of jobs. Of course, no one is taking the lead in that area. Sadly, neither Boehner nor Reid are doing much of anything in that area, although as leaders of their respective houses they should be doing just that.

stlouiedipalma;716783 wrote:... Take the Middle East, for example. Many of you here would have us rushing in to head up a no-fly zone or planning strategic missile strikes. Obama has waited for the world to agree on a course of action, rather than exhibit a "knee-jerk" response which no other country would support. ...

Tell that to the 100s or maybe 1000s that the Lybian regime killed during the Obama thought process (ie NCAA bracket time). I agree we should not have rushed in on our own but he should have been at the front in the talks. Instead he followed Frances lead. :shrugs:

Oh, so you want to blame those deaths on Obama?

stlouiedipalma;716801 wrote:Oh, so you want to blame those deaths on Obama?

Could he have stopped them?

tsst_fballfan;716790 wrote: Instead he followed Frances lead. :shrugs:

Sarkozy is a pussy. He talks big. He would not take any action without major involvement of the US. If he is a leader let him send his jets across the Mediterranean and attack Libya himself.

stlouiedipalma;716801 wrote:Oh, so you want to blame those deaths on Obama?

At the very least he did absolutely nothing to stop it!

tsst_fballfan;716920 wrote:At the very least he did absolutely nothing to stop it!

I suppose he could have jumped in with both feet, facts be damned, without any exit strategy, and made it possible for, let's say, over 5,000 of our troops to come home in caskets. Would that have made you happy?

stlouiedipalma;716783 wrote:Belly, I know you don't care one bit for Obama, but one of his leadership traits I am impressed with in his handling of foreign policy is his ability to gather information, analyze the situation and make decisions based on what's best for America. Take the Middle East, for example. Many of you here would have us rushing in to head up a no-fly zone or planning strategic missile strikes. Obama has waited for the world to agree on a course of action, rather than exhibit a "knee-jerk" response which no other country would support.

On the domestic front, I do wish he had been a bit more forceful on the issue of jobs. Of course, no one is taking the lead in that area. Sadly, neither Boehner nor Reid are doing much of anything in that area, although as leaders of their respective houses they should be doing just that.

Bring it down to your level. If Obama was in your work place, on your team, a friend you hang with … would he be just another guy or would there be that quality in his character that makes him the leader. Define by your standards?

In my world Obama would not make the grade of a leader in any aspect of my life. Now as a friend I could be good with that .. I have lots of friends that views are different and ideas are not the same as mine .. sometimes asshole and in return I can be a ass also. But when the chips are down and the back against the wall … Obama would not be the go to guy… I couldn’t true or depend on him…

Belly... I would ask Obama to organize my closet!

Actually... scratch that. He would take whatever he deemed that I didn't need and give it to somebody he thought needed it more than I.

:rolleyes:

stlouiedipalma;716783 wrote:Belly, I know you don't care one bit for Obama, but one of his leadership traits I am impressed with in his handling of foreign policy is his ability to gather information, analyze the situation and make decisions based on what's best for America. Take the Middle East, for example. Many of you here would have us rushing in to head up a no-fly zone or planning strategic missile strikes. Obama has waited for the world to agree on a course of action, rather than exhibit a "knee-jerk" response which no other country would support.

By the very definition of the words, leader and follower, by waiting for the other world leaders to make up his mind FOR him, thus makes him a follower. The USA used to be the leader of the free world. Now, by your lofty praise, we have no leadership, only acquiescing to the world's feelings. If he was a leader, he would have dropped everything he was doing and taken charge, devised a plan (whatever it turned out to be), arranged for others to follow US, and then implement his plan. That's a leader. This guy is a political agitator/hack that is so beholden to other's causes he is a eunoch. And it shows. To everyone. Including our enemies, whom used to fear US, now they can't wait to try on Barry to see how much they can get away with.

BTW - how are those Somali pirates doin? Is he still waiting on Somalia to tell US what to do? Or do they need to kill a few more Americans to get his attention? How's that situation for leadership, eh?

Thread Bomber;716557 wrote:This is the ultimate leader!

But he would be unelectable.

We couldn't afford his entitlement program, and his foreign policy would be unacceptable

Huh...I'll have to go check up on my Bible. I always thought he was trying to pay the price to save people's eternal souls. I had no idea he was running for the position of Caesar.

The correct answer is obviously Ronald Reagan.

tsst_fballfan;716920 wrote:At the very least he did absolutely nothing to stop it!

Yup, reacting before thinking is definitely the way to enter into wars. Just look how awesome Iraq and Afghanistan are. They haven't been massive wastes of lives on all sides and even more gigantic wastes of money. Oh wait...

BGFalcons82;717726 wrote:By the very definition of the words, leader and follower, by waiting for the other world leaders to make up his mind FOR him, thus makes him a follower. The USA used to be the leader of the free world. Now, by your lofty praise, we have no leadership, only acquiescing to the world's feelings. If he was a leader, he would have dropped everything he was doing and taken charge, devised a plan (whatever it turned out to be), arranged for others to follow US, and then implement his plan. That's a leader. This guy is a political agitator/hack that is so beholden to other's causes he is a eunoch. And it shows. To everyone. Including our enemies, whom used to fear US, now they can't wait to try on Barry to see how much they can get away with.

BTW - how are those Somali pirates doin? Is he still waiting on Somalia to tell US what to do? Or do they need to kill a few more Americans to get his attention? How's that situation for leadership, eh?

I'll answer with my earlier post. Apparently, this is the kind of leader you desire.

"I suppose he could have jumped in with both feet, facts be damned, without any exit strategy, and made it possible for, let's say, over 5,000 of our troops to come home in caskets. Would that have made you happy? "

stlouiedipalma;718135 wrote:I'll answer with my earlier post. Apparently, this is the kind of leader you desire.

"I suppose he could have jumped in with both feet, facts be damned, without any exit strategy, and made it possible for, let's say, over 5,000 of our troops to come home in caskets. Would that have made you happy? "

You have made a poor assumption. I was perfectly fine with staying out of Libya's mess. What I don't understand is the strategy. But that's on another thread. Leadership is taking charge and having others follow your lead. It is not waiting and watching to see what others want and then deciding to go along with the gang. Unless, of course, he is auditioning for World President. Hmmm...

Sometimes leadership is exhibited by restraint. That means not succumbing to the knee-jerk reaction favored by some. It means listening to other ideas which might just be better than yours. Clearly, you want someone in charge who thinks his way is the only way.

stlouiedipalma;719130 wrote:Sometimes leadership is exhibited by restraint. That means not succumbing to the knee-jerk reaction favored by some. It means listening to other ideas which might just be better than yours. Clearly, you want someone in charge who thinks his way is the only way.

Then Jimmy Carter must have been your hero.

Thread Bomber;716557 wrote:This is the ultimate leader!




But he would be unelectable.

We couldn't afford his entitlement program, and his foreign policy would be unacceptable

Plus he wasn't a natural born US citizen unlike Barry is, or I mean refuses to prove.

stlouiedipalma;719130 wrote:Sometimes leadership is exhibited by restraint. That means not succumbing to the knee-jerk reaction favored by some. It means listening to other ideas which might just be better than yours. Clearly, you want someone in charge who thinks his way is the only way.

Whether acting with restraint or taking action, a leader would tell the world, "this is what we (the global we, literally) are going to do".

believer;719611 wrote:Then Jimmy Carter must have been your hero.

I never thought Carter was Presidential material during his term. I do, however, feel that Carter in his post-Presidential years, has become an example of what our former Presidents should be doing, promoting peace, democracy, free elections and global public service.