Notices
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 272
Like Tree331Likes

Thread: Obama's legacy

  1. #1 Obama's legacy 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    645
    The American people did not fully grasp the gratitude it owed, in his time, to another guy from Illinois. History (and that is the better lens for viewing events) will regard Barack Obama as one of our best presidents. I won't name his accomplishments, though the list is long enough, but I will note the respect he receives around the world. Cynics dismiss politics as gone-bad; that it makes little difference which party or candidate one supports, they're all corrupt.
    I f we, as citizens, discard our participation in political discourse, we will get the kind of government we deserve. The GOP majority in the House has shut- down government, blocked and stalled badly-needed legislation, opposed every initiative proposed by the president, and smeared, slandered, and called him everything but a gentleman. Yes, politics matters. It's easy to shrug and say, who cares ? Self-governance is harder. Politics is the art of compromise. Obama knows this well and that the political extremes make most of the noise, but that decisions are forged somewhere towards the middle-ground. Is Obama a socialist ? I hope so. An atheist ? Probably. A realist ? Definitely.
    They may want to carve-out his image on Mt. Rushmore, some day. Some will insist it be on the back of the mountain. Call them cynics.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Is he really that good or did that illiterate moron (Yes, illiterate. Which is why he never used a teleprompter. He couldn't read it and the thing doesn't display pictures, so the teleprompter was of no use to him) that preceded him just set the bar so low that it was impossible for Obama not to look good?


    Dave Wilson and exchemist like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    645
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Is he really that good or did that illiterate moron (Yes, illiterate. Which is why he never used a teleprompter. He couldn't read it and the thing doesn't display pictures, so the teleprompter was of no use to him) that preceded him just set the bar so low that it was impossible for Obama not to look good?
    Bush set the mark as low as it goes, true enough. But he also left Obama with 2 wars, a crippled economy, high unemployment, massive debt, and unaddressed issues like immigration reform and an inequitable tax system. You can't be serious about his literacy. Even Bush could read, even if he forgot which way to hold the book sometimes.
    Dave Wilson, PumaMan and exchemist like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by umbradiago
    You can't be serious about his literacy. Even Bush could read, even if he forgot which way to hold the book sometimes.
    I am completely serious about his literacy. I know an illiterate when I hear/see one. I wanna see him read a passage out of a book. Any book, not one that he has a paragraph/page memorized that someone coached him on but just a book at random... "hey dubya read this for me?" He can't do it. whenever he spoke he had no note cards, no teleprompter, no writing on his hand like stupid Palin, nothing! The man can't read. And I'm not dogging him for that. I'm dogging him for lying about it. His wife was a librarian for Christ's sake, sit down with an early learner book and let her help you. ya' lazy bastard!!

    BTW, what was Laura's campaign as first lady?? anybody remember? Anybody? LITERACY!!!! probably because of what snores next to her in bed!!
    W took a big interest in school with his ridiculous, "no child left behind," How come? was it because he feels left behind?
    When America was under attack he sat there with the book, "My Pet Goat," in his hands. Was he reading it? Nope. the kids were, he was turning pages.
    The man can't read. I hated him as president, But I'd teach him how to read if gave me the chance. It's the least I could do for a struggling reader, no matter how horrible a leader/person he is.

    Anybody else remember the "reading competition" he had with Karl Rove? It made the news that he supposedly read all of these high page books of literature, Shakespeare and what not, something like 150 books in just short of a month... to beat out Karl Rove... over compensating much? How about when he would use words incorrectly and try to sound smart when he would try to tell us what those words meant? "Dissemble/disassemble" anyone? That isn't the vocabulary of a well read person.
    Dave Wilson and umbradiago like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    645
    My misunderstanding. I thought you were saying Obama is illiterate. No, W is not cerebral at all and when asked what his favorite read was, answered "The Bible". Nice, safe answer that tells any literary-minded person that Bush doesn't read much. He visited Britain in about '05, I think (probably to fill Tony Blair's dogfood bowl) and was asked by a reporter what books he's been reading. His answer (chortle) was "Oh, a couple of Shakespeare's ...and... Camus, and (I forget)." And he pronounced Camus correctly. I know he had never read Camus. I just know this. How ? I've read a little Camus and Bush, well...no, no...not possible. He had obviously been coached (by Laura?) to try sounding a little less, um, dumb. No, I don't recall a reading competition with Rove, but I believe you. How about the time W said "I guess they misunderestimated me ?" Yeah, I guess we did.
    And now there is a library in Texas with the name George W. Bush engraved on it.
    Dave Wilson and PumaMan like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    There's a big difference between not knowing how to read and not reading well outloud. You cannot conclude much by a person's inability to read aloud very well other than they can't read outloud very well; like spelling, it says virtually nothing about intelligence or reading ability.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; March 6th, 2014 at 03:05 AM.
    Dave Wilson and babe like this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    I think Obama will be remembered as being the president that had to piss into one of the worst rainstorms of ignorant, petty, bigoted morons ever.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    It is interesting that many in the USA perceive Obama as a socialist. I recall seeing, I think through a link on this forum, the position of various world leaders on a two axis/four quadrant grid. Obama plotted in much the same place as Margaret Thatcher, (who was only matched in right wing behaviour by the alleged socialist Tony Blair).
    Dave Wilson and umbradiago like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,539
    Quote Originally Posted by umbradiago View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Is he really that good or did that illiterate moron (Yes, illiterate. Which is why he never used a teleprompter. He couldn't read it and the thing doesn't display pictures, so the teleprompter was of no use to him) that preceded him just set the bar so low that it was impossible for Obama not to look good?
    Bush set the mark as low as it goes, true enough. But he also left Obama with 2 wars, a crippled economy, high unemployment, massive debt, and unaddressed issues like immigration reform and an inequitable tax system. You can't be serious about his literacy. Even Bush could read, even if he forgot which way to hold the book sometimes.
    As an outsider, it seems to me you make an often overlooked point abut the clusterfuck that Obama inherited. Apart from the wars, the world financial system crashed just before he took office. It seems to a lot of us across the water that he has done a decent job in appalling conditions, while his opponents have earned contempt for their extraordinarily unconstructive attitude, while all these problems were being wrestled with.

    It may also be that Obama has presided over (though not sure whether he has influenced it) a climactic period in which the centre of gravity of US politics has irreversibly moved towards the young, the multicultural and the urban. The Republican party seems to be searching for redefinition, having belatedly realised now that there are "not enough angry white men" to support their previous flirtation with extreme conservatism.

    The single biggest depressing factor, as seen from afar, is the pernicious influence of Rupert Murdoch on the quality of political debate. Fox seems to have bred an entire generation who can no longer distinguish between argument and abuse. Abuse has more entertainment value than argument and the eliding of news with entertainment was bound to dumb down politics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    It is interesting that many in the USA perceive Obama as a socialist. I recall seeing, I think through a link on this forum, the position of various world leaders on a two axis/four quadrant grid. Obama plotted in much the same place as Margaret Thatcher, (who was only matched in right wing behaviour by the alleged socialist Tony Blair).
    It's because of the health care system, I have no idea why he would be in the same place as Thatcher since Thatcher was a neoliberal who was pro-deregulation and Obama afaik (not exactly interested in US politics so may be wrong) is pro-regulation and big government.
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    548
    Obama won because of his charisma/personality, and for a country seeped in racist history, it was "healing" for a non-white (he's NOT black, get over it!! lol..) to become President.

    But he's like ALL Presidents before and after him, he's against his word. This IMO is the principal flaw of liberal democracy.
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    I won't name his accomplishments, though the list is long enough
    I'd like you to please since you brought it up, thanks.
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    738
    Quote Originally Posted by umbradiago View Post
    They may want to carve-out his image on Mt. Rushmore, some day. Some will insist it be on the back of the mountain. Call them cynics.
    Nope. Can't do that. The back of Mt. Rushmore:

    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    "History (and that is the better lens for viewing events) will regard Barack Obama as one of our best presidents."
    Really? Compared to W Bush even Sponge Bob Square Pants would be hailed and applauded around the world (as a less worse president), that wouldn't make Sponge Bob Square Pants a good president, let alone the best president in history .
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    There's a big difference between not knowing how to read and not reading well outloud. You cannot conclude much by a person's inability to read aloud very well other than they can't read outloud very well; like spelling, it says virtually nothing about intelligence or reading ability.
    I disagree overall. You are right to a certain degree, not being able to read well outloud and not being able to read are two different things. But the rub is here, anybody who is literate has a certain level of literacy whether it's outloud reading or reading in their head. Outloud reading speaks specifically to decoding, I agree some people decode better in their heads than out loud but anybody who is literate has a basic level of decoding. anybody who can't read outloud probably doesn't read any better in their head...
    all this doesn't matter anyway cause I've never seen W read.
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    It is interesting that many in the USA perceive Obama as a socialist. I recall seeing, I think through a link on this forum, the position of various world leaders on a two axis/four quadrant grid. Obama plotted in much the same place as Margaret Thatcher, (who was only matched in right wing behaviour by the alleged socialist Tony Blair).
    That's the narrative pushed by the right wing and they are using that word (socialist) wrong. They just needed a label to separate him and attack. it's just pitiful.
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by umbradiago View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Is he really that good or did that illiterate moron (Yes, illiterate. Which is why he never used a teleprompter. He couldn't read it and the thing doesn't display pictures, so the teleprompter was of no use to him) that preceded him just set the bar so low that it was impossible for Obama not to look good?
    Bush set the mark as low as it goes, true enough. But he also left Obama with 2 wars, a crippled economy, high unemployment, massive debt, and unaddressed issues like immigration reform and an inequitable tax system. You can't be serious about his literacy. Even Bush could read, even if he forgot which way to hold the book sometimes.
    As an outsider, it seems to me you make an often overlooked point abut the clusterfuck that Obama inherited. Apart from the wars, the world financial system crashed just before he took office. It seems to a lot of us across the water that he has done a decent job in appalling conditions, while his opponents have earned contempt for their extraordinarily unconstructive attitude, while all these problems were being wrestled with.

    It may also be that Obama has presided over (though not sure whether he has influenced it) a climactic period in which the centre of gravity of US politics has irreversibly moved towards the young, the multicultural and the urban. The Republican party seems to be searching for redefinition, having belatedly realised now that there are "not enough angry white men" to support their previous flirtation with extreme conservatism.

    The single biggest depressing factor, as seen from afar, is the pernicious influence of Rupert Murdoch on the quality of political debate. Fox seems to have bred an entire generation who can no longer distinguish between argument and abuse. Abuse has more entertainment value than argument and the eliding of news with entertainment was bound to dumb down politics.
    Very well written and insightful. Fantastic even.
    Dave Wilson and umbradiago like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    645
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    I won't name his accomplishments, though the list is long enough
    I'd like you to please since you brought it up, thanks.
    You're right; I should. But I won't do so. My point was that history often regards a person in a different light
    than in the glare of the present. Obama is not without flaw; no president is. Nor is he the Messiah, as the right claims his supporters see him. But he is highly intelligent, of solid ethics, and we are fortunate to have him in the White House. Many great men are under-appreciated in their own time. And women, too.
    PumaMan, dan hunter and grmpysmrf like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,539
    Quote Originally Posted by PumaMan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by umbradiago View Post
    They may want to carve-out his image on Mt. Rushmore, some day. Some will insist it be on the back of the mountain. Call them cynics.
    Nope. Can't do that. The back of Mt. Rushmore:

    But, surely…the perfect location to commemorate George W Bush?!
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    It is interesting that many in the USA perceive Obama as a socialist. I recall seeing, I think through a link on this forum, the position of various world leaders on a two axis/four quadrant grid. Obama plotted in much the same place as Margaret Thatcher, (who was only matched in right wing behaviour by the alleged socialist Tony Blair).
    It's because of the health care system, I have no idea why he would be in the same place as Thatcher since Thatcher was a neoliberal who was pro-deregulation and Obama afaik (not exactly interested in US politics so may be wrong) is pro-regulation and big government.
    Obama is not pro big government. Obama is in favor of effective government for the common welfare of all, not just the rich. Having regulation does not make you a socialist or pro big government.
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by sarnamluvu View Post
    Obama won because of his charisma/personality,
    that's really pretty much any politician.

    Quote Originally Posted by sarnamluvu
    and for a country seeped in racist history, it was "healing" for a non-white (he's NOT black, get over it!! lol..) to become President.
    I refute that "he only won cause he was black," claim. if that were true jesse jackson and Al Sharpton would have won the presidency much sooner than Obama.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PumaMan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by umbradiago View Post
    They may want to carve-out his image on Mt. Rushmore, some day. Some will insist it be on the back of the mountain. Call them cynics.
    Nope. Can't do that. The back of Mt. Rushmore:

    But, surely…the perfect location to commemorate George W Bush?!
    There's already four pictures of him right there... how many more do we need?
    Dave Wilson and PumaMan like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    645
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by umbradiago View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Is he really that good or did that illiterate moron (Yes, illiterate. Which is why he never used a teleprompter. He couldn't read it and the thing doesn't display pictures, so the teleprompter was of no use to him) that preceded him just set the bar so low that it was impossible for Obama not to look good?
    Bush set the mark as low as it goes, true enough. But he also left Obama with 2 wars, a crippled economy, high unemployment, massive debt, and unaddressed issues like immigration reform and an inequitable tax system. You can't be serious about his literacy. Even Bush could read, even if he forgot which way to hold the book sometimes.
    As an outsider, it seems to me you make an often overlooked point abut the clusterfuck that Obama inherited. Apart from the wars, the world financial system crashed just before he took office. It seems to a lot of us across the water that he has done a decent job in appalling conditions, while his opponents have earned contempt for their extraordinarily unconstructive attitude, while all these problems were being wrestled with.

    It may also be that Obama has presided over (though not sure whether he has influenced it) a climactic period in which the centre of gravity of US politics has irreversibly moved towards the young, the multicultural and the urban. The Republican party seems to be searching for redefinition, having belatedly realised now that there are "not enough angry white men" to support their previous flirtation with extreme conservatism.

    The single biggest depressing factor, as seen from afar, is the pernicious influence of Rupert Murdoch on the quality of political debate. Fox seems to have bred an entire generation who can no longer distinguish between argument and abuse. Abuse has more entertainment value than argument and the eliding of news with entertainment was bound to dumb down politics.
    Well put, sir. Often the view is better at a distance. Europeans value the man more than many, many of his own countrymen. Murdoch is a worm and Fox spews garbage 24/7, hypnotizing some Americans with it's little spinning cube; a magician's stock-in-trade.
    Dave Wilson and PumaMan like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    645
    Right. All the talk about "big government" is specious. It's size is irrelevant; the quality of government is what matters most. As our population increases and the complexity
    of business and commerce grows, should we not expect government regulation to expand ? As we are growing-up, should we not expect to have to buy larger-sized shoes ?
    Dave Wilson and grmpysmrf like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    Obama will be remembered as the man who reinstated the Banking Act of 1933 to minimize conflicts of interests in the financial industry that funded his campaign, as the man who put an end to the military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, who pushed to end the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act of 2006, who increased whistle blower protection and protected Edward Snowdon while putting an end to the illegal/unethical activities of the NSA/FBI/etc that were denounced while holding the public agencies to a high standard of Integrity, as the man who was key in transferring military spending into civilian applications such as the space program and the curing of cancer etc, under whom the US railway infrastructures became on par with that of Japan and France in the previous century (and with China in this century), hail Obama the herald of peace, integrity and progress!
    (Im teasing, I do realize the GOP retrograde reactionary obscurantists would have been much worse)
    Dave Wilson and umbradiago like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    Obama will be remembered as the..... hail Obama the herald of peace, integrity and progress!
    Or he might be remembered as the man who singlehandedly started WWIII.

    History can be so unpredictable!
    Dave Wilson and umbradiago like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    You're right; I should. But I won't do so
    So why do you state something that you can't support? If I said that someone was a great person I'd also state why I thought so with examples of that persons accomplishments. If you do not post then I'd think you shouldn't say anything at all about someones accomplishments.
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    645
    I have come not to bury Caesar, but to praise him. When he dies we'll do it the other way 'round.
    Dave Wilson and dan hunter like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    His legacy will be a flaccid two terms where very little happened, and what did happen was so catastrophically maligned and attacked that it teetered on failure.

    Personally, I don't view these last 5 or 6 years and the failures that came with them as part of Obama's legacy. I see it as the single worst congress in this nation's history. Obama became the president he had to become in the face of some of the most absurd opposition we've ever witnessed to a President. The way he was treated (as a failure before he even took oath) makes Clinton's impeachment for presidential shenanigans look like an episode of Candid Camera (Chris Christie as Dom DeLuise).

    We set Obama up for nothing but failure and disappointment and we're shocked that it has pervaded most of his presidency. After what he went through in his first four years, I can honestly say I don't know if I could have run again in his shoes...
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    You're right; I should. But I won't do so
    So why do you state something that you can't support? If I said that someone was a great person I'd also state why I thought so with examples of that persons accomplishments. If you do not post then I'd think you shouldn't say anything at all about someones accomplishments.
    He's not stating something he can't support. The information is out there, you have probably already seen that info. you probably don't agree with it. why should he repeat that which you already know you don't agree with.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    645
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    You're right; I should. But I won't do so
    So why do you state something that you can't support? If I said that someone was a great person I'd also state why I thought so with examples of that persons accomplishments. If you do not post then I'd think you shouldn't say anything at all about someones accomplishments.
    I didn't say I can't support it. Only that I don't wanna, at the moment. I have to go somewhere. Don't mean to sound rude or dismissive, just gotta' go p/u my brother. More later.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    There's a big difference between not knowing how to read and not reading well outloud. You cannot conclude much by a person's inability to read aloud very well other than they can't read outloud very well; like spelling, it says virtually nothing about intelligence or reading ability.
    I disagree overall. You are right to a certain degree, not being able to read well outloud and not being able to read are two different things. But the rub is here, anybody who is literate has a certain level of literacy whether it's outloud reading or reading in their head. Outloud reading speaks specifically to decoding, I agree some people decode better in their heads than out loud but anybody who is literate has a basic level of decoding. anybody who can't read outloud probably doesn't read any better in their head...
    all this doesn't matter anyway cause I've never seen W read.
    You can disagree all you want...the science is entirely against your opinion. In fact, while reading out loud can be a valuable tool for teaching, by middle school most people transition into subvocalization where reading speed and comprehension increase. Yes, it's slower and less effective for comprehension to read out loud unless one is reading for the emotions of passages. In short, you're are wrong and trying to make a general statement about an adult based on one characteristic for which you seem to know almost nothing.
    --
    Do you want to know about another president who struggled to read outloud and was universally considered a poor public speaker? Non other than Thomas Jefferson, arguable the most intelligent founding father.
    Dave Wilson, babe and umbradiago like this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Unless some other major event happens Obama's legacy will probably be as a good, but not fantastic president.

    + Pulled us out of an economic disaster, (that gets a president huge kudos regardless of anything else)
    + Ending two wars. (another biggy)
    + Moving closer to universal health care. (folks will disagree but it's pretty much the standard in developed nations for good reason).
    + Increasing liberty for gays and other groups.

    - Complete failure of leadership to move Congress on anything his second term.
    - Failing to control debt of social programs.
    - Failing to tackle major environmental and sustainability issues (future generations will condemn all of us)
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; March 6th, 2014 at 01:30 PM.
    Dave Wilson, PumaMan, babe and 1 others like this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    There's a big difference between not knowing how to read and not reading well outloud. You cannot conclude much by a person's inability to read aloud very well other than they can't read outloud very well; like spelling, it says virtually nothing about intelligence or reading ability.
    I disagree overall. You are right to a certain degree, not being able to read well outloud and not being able to read are two different things. But the rub is here, anybody who is literate has a certain level of literacy whether it's outloud reading or reading in their head. Outloud reading speaks specifically to decoding, I agree some people decode better in their heads than out loud but anybody who is literate has a basic level of decoding. anybody who can't read outloud probably doesn't read any better in their head...
    all this doesn't matter anyway cause I've never seen W read.
    You can disagree all you want...the science is entirely against your opinion. In fact, while reading out loud can be a valuable tool for teaching, by middle school most people transition into subvocalization where reading speed and comprehension increase.
    You're talking two different scenarios. reading speed and comprehension is always faster when not reading outloud. reading outloud you can only read as fast as your mouth will move. but slow reading and slow decoding is not the same thing.

    Yes, it's slower and less effective for comprehension to read out loud unless one is reading for the emotions of passages. In short, you're are wrong and trying to make a general statement about an adult based on one characteristic for which you seem to know almost nothing.
    People have been convicted for long rates of jail times on less circumstantial evidence than I have for W not being able to read.
    --
    Do you want to know about another president who struggled to read outloud and was universally considered a poor public speaker? Non other than Thomas Jefferson, arguable the most intelligent founding father.
    Public speaking and reading out loud are not the same things.
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    738
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    - Complete failure of leadership to move Congress on anything his second term.
    This is the only one I would quibble with -- a little. I would assign it a zero instead of a plus or minus. It's not completely Obama's fault. I give Congress (House of Reps) half the blame.

    My politics in a nutshell: The Dems are the lesser of two evils.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Bush said once that his enemies were misunderestimating him.
    He was right.
    Bush's first run for public office was against Kent Hance for Representative of Texas. Bush presented himself as intelligent and articulate with the suggestion that Hance was a bit of a country bumpkin.
    Hance depicted Bush as a Yankee City Slicker.
    Bush lost that election badly and never again repeated the mistake of looking more intelligent than the voters.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Bush said once that his enemies were misunderestimating him.
    He was right.
    Bush's first run for public office was against Kent Hance for Representative of Texas. Bush presented himself as intelligent and articulate with the suggestion that Hance was a bit of a country bumpkin.
    Hance depicted Bush as a Yankee City Slicker.
    Bush lost that election badly and never again repeated the mistake of looking more intelligent than the voters.
    Apparently he immersed himself in the part.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    Bush lost that election badly and never again repeated the mistake of looking more intelligent than the voters.
    this reminds me of an SNL(not sure) sketch where W Bush is given lines to his ear piece during a debate, and every error and stupid thing he says is the calculated scripted line hes being given by the image makers behind the scene, funny.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    738
    George W. Bush was surely a buffoon. But I like to think that he wasn't devious and that he made the mistake of surrounding himself with devious (but intelligent) chicken-hawks, who actually pulled the strings.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Bush said once that his enemies were misunderestimating him.
    He was right.
    Bush's first run for public office was against Kent Hance for Representative of Texas. Bush presented himself as intelligent and articulate with the suggestion that Hance was a bit of a country bumpkin.
    Hance depicted Bush as a Yankee City Slicker.
    Bush lost that election badly and never again repeated the mistake of looking more intelligent than the voters.
    Apparently he immersed himself in the part.
    Deeply immersed.
    I am not trying to boost Bush here. There are a lot of his actions I disagree with.
    However he succeeded winning The Governorship of Texas 2 terms (first time anybody did that) and then 2 terms as President of USA.
    It takes some serious political intelligence to do that.
    If you want to see some nasty calculated political maneouvering take a look at how Bush destroyed John McCain when they were running for the Republican nomination before the 2000 election.
    Don't forget Bush also had to deal with the extreme rightwing lunacy that had infected Republican politics and there was a good chance he might have lost the support of the American Right for being not conservative enough to suit them.
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    It is interesting that many in the USA perceive Obama as a socialist. I recall seeing, I think through a link on this forum, the position of various world leaders on a two axis/four quadrant grid. Obama plotted in much the same place as Margaret Thatcher, (who was only matched in right wing behaviour by the alleged socialist Tony Blair).
    It's because of the health care system, I have no idea why he would be in the same place as Thatcher since Thatcher was a neoliberal who was pro-deregulation and Obama afaik (not exactly interested in US politics so may be wrong) is pro-regulation and big government.
    Obama is not pro big government. Obama is in favor of effective government for the common welfare of all, not just the rich. Having regulation does not make you a socialist or pro big government.
    To a libertarian healthcare is big government. Trust me.

    Quote Originally Posted by umbradiago View Post
    Right. All the talk about "big government" is specious. It's size is irrelevant; the quality of government is what matters most. As our population increases and the complexity
    of business and commerce grows, should we not expect government regulation to expand ? As we are growing-up, should we not expect to have to buy larger-sized shoes ?
    You don't understand the mindset sir. The libertarian thinks the government should only interfere in minimal circumstances and that to do otherwise is a violation of liberty (since the state exercises authority over the individual), according to the libertarian, there is no such thing as an effective government (at least not in the sense you're implying). Government is bureaucracy and violates the rights of its citizens while offering them certain services (such as security), it is a neccessary evil in this mindset.

    By the way it isn't just stupid people that think this, check Hayek, Mises (although a bit intolerant), Sowell and Friedman.
    Dave Wilson and dan hunter like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by PumaMan View Post
    George W. Bush was surely a buffoon. But I like to think that he wasn't devious and that he made the mistake of surrounding himself with devious (but intelligent) chicken-hawks, who actually pulled the strings.
    I'll give you that, not devious just too stupid to know otherwise.
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    George Bush was highly intelligent, although he gave the impression of being otherwise. His diplomacy and politics were superb, even if I do think his policies were awful.
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    George Bush was highly intelligent.
    Prove it
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Bush said once that his enemies were misunderestimating him.
    He was right.
    Bush's first run for public office was against Kent Hance for Representative of Texas. Bush presented himself as intelligent and articulate with the suggestion that Hance was a bit of a country bumpkin.
    Hance depicted Bush as a Yankee City Slicker.
    Bush lost that election badly and never again repeated the mistake of looking more intelligent than the voters.
    Apparently he immersed himself in the part.
    Deeply immersed.
    I am not trying to boost Bush here. There are a lot of his actions I disagree with.
    However he succeeded winning The Governorship of Texas 2 terms (first time anybody did that) and then 2 terms as President of USA.
    It takes some serious political intelligence to do that.
    Not really, look at the constituency of Texas.


    If you want to see some nasty calculated political maneuvering take a look at how Bush destroyed John McCain when they were running for the Republican nomination before the 2000 election.
    Those were Bushes strategists not Bush. If he's highly intelligent it's only in so far that he was intelligent enough to hire smart people.

    Don't forget Bush also had to deal with the extreme rightwing lunacy....
    Que? "Deal with"? Tell that nonsense to the tourists. He lead that sh!t!!
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    Actually W Bush could be both a buffoon and have an image that is in part manipulated, being rich/connected he can afford to have advisers that tell him he should dress like this or make a staged video in which he is doing manual labour on his ranch to replace the silver spoon image with a real man of the people image and potentially have PR firm hold a focus group about which Born Again Jesus lines/anecdotes moves them the most.

    (and the buffoon vs genius is somewhat of a caricature, because a genius could nonetheless make mistakes that in a media prone person would be highly publicized, while a normal person can have good ideas and inspired moments, but like caricatures are usually funnier that a photo, saying hes a buffoon is also funnier)
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    645
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    George Bush was highly intelligent, although he gave the impression of being otherwise. His diplomacy and politics were superb, even if I do think his policies were awful.
    Then he is the greatest actor in history. Somehow, I doubt this. Even Reagan never rose above grade "b" actor status. What he IS, is a Bush. (did that sound like Bill?) If by "diplomacy and politics", you mean his bending and handshaking, yeah.
    Dave Wilson, PumaMan and grmpysmrf like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by umbradiago View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    George Bush was highly intelligent, although he gave the impression of being otherwise. His diplomacy and politics were superb, even if I do think his policies were awful.
    Then he is the greatest actor in history. Somehow, I doubt this. Even Reagan never rose above grade "b" actor status. What he IS, is a Bush. (did that sound like Bill?) If by "diplomacy and politics", you mean his bending and handshaking, yeah.
    You have a good and evil view of human behaviour, it's far more complex than that. Tony Blair was by no means a stupid man: Tony Blair in 'A Journey': On U.S. Leaders Bush, Clinton - TIME
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium
    To a libertarian healthcare is big government. Trust me.
    That's the fault of the libertarian.
    I don't think freedom means free to die of curable diseases. A government's job is to provide for the common welfare of its citizens. what's more "common welfare" than the health of it's citizens?

    Quote Originally Posted by umbradiago View Post
    Right. All the talk about "big government" is specious. It's size is irrelevant; the quality of government is what matters most. As our population increases and the complexity
    of business and commerce grows, should we not expect government regulation to expand ? As we are growing-up, should we not expect to have to buy larger-sized shoes ?
    You don't understand the mindset sir. The libertarian thinks the government should only interfere in minimal circumstances and that to do otherwise is a violation of liberty (since the state exercises authority over the individual), according to the libertarian, there is no such thing as an effective government (at least not in the sense you're implying). Government is bureaucracy and violates the rights of its citizens while offering them certain services (such as security), it is a neccessary evil in this mindset.
    That is a very narrow view and leads to way more problems quicker than government bureaucracy. The government interfering with somebody or some corporation trying to infringe on my rights is not anti liberty.
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by umbradiago View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    George Bush was highly intelligent, although he gave the impression of being otherwise. His diplomacy and politics were superb, even if I do think his policies were awful.
    Then he is the greatest actor in history. Somehow, I doubt this. Even Reagan never rose above grade "b" actor status. What he IS, is a Bush. (did that sound like Bill?) If by "diplomacy and politics", you mean his bending and handshaking, yeah.
    You have a good and evil view of human behaviour, it's far more complex than that. Tony Blair was by no means a stupid man: Tony Blair in 'A Journey': On U.S. Leaders Bush, Clinton - TIME
    But the situation Blair was thrown into dictated his behavior.
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium
    To a libertarian healthcare is big government. Trust me.
    That's the fault of the libertarian.
    I don't think freedom means free to die of curable diseases. A government's job is to provide for the common welfare of its citizens. what's more "common welfare" than the health of it's citizens?

    Quote Originally Posted by umbradiago View Post
    Right. All the talk about "big government" is specious. It's size is irrelevant; the quality of government is what matters most. As our population increases and the complexity
    of business and commerce grows, should we not expect government regulation to expand ? As we are growing-up, should we not expect to have to buy larger-sized shoes ?
    You don't understand the mindset sir. The libertarian thinks the government should only interfere in minimal circumstances and that to do otherwise is a violation of liberty (since the state exercises authority over the individual), according to the libertarian, there is no such thing as an effective government (at least not in the sense you're implying). Government is bureaucracy and violates the rights of its citizens while offering them certain services (such as security), it is a neccessary evil in this mindset.
    That is a very narrow view and leads to way more problems quicker than government bureaucracy. The government interfering with somebody or some corporation trying to infringe on my rights is not anti liberty.[/QUOTE]

    Corporations are ran by people who (on the basis of the libertarian mindset) earned their right to be there... and you seem to be confusing legislature with politics itself (remember there's a balance of checks and seperation of powers in the US), no one is denying that legislation is needed (that would be ridiculous), libertarians are far more lenient (probably an ironic term) though.

    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by umbradiago View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    George Bush was highly intelligent, although he gave the impression of being otherwise. His diplomacy and politics were superb, even if I do think his policies were awful.
    Then he is the greatest actor in history. Somehow, I doubt this. Even Reagan never rose above grade "b" actor status. What he IS, is a Bush. (did that sound like Bill?) If by "diplomacy and politics", you mean his bending and handshaking, yeah.
    You have a good and evil view of human behaviour, it's far more complex than that. Tony Blair was by no means a stupid man: Tony Blair in 'A Journey': On U.S. Leaders Bush, Clinton - TIME
    But the situation Blair was thrown into dictated his behavior.
    You asked for evidence, i'm giving you the words of a highly intelligent man (PM who used to be a lawyer) and who knows him personally.
    PumaMan likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium
    To a libertarian healthcare is big government. Trust me.
    That's the fault of the libertarian.
    I don't think freedom means free to die of curable diseases. A government's job is to provide for the common welfare of its citizens. what's more "common welfare" than the health of it's citizens?

    Quote Originally Posted by umbradiago View Post
    Right. All the talk about "big government" is specious. It's size is irrelevant; the quality of government is what matters most. As our population increases and the complexity
    of business and commerce grows, should we not expect government regulation to expand ? As we are growing-up, should we not expect to have to buy larger-sized shoes ?
    You don't understand the mindset sir. The libertarian thinks the government should only interfere in minimal circumstances and that to do otherwise is a violation of liberty (since the state exercises authority over the individual), according to the libertarian, there is no such thing as an effective government (at least not in the sense you're implying). Government is bureaucracy and violates the rights of its citizens while offering them certain services (such as security), it is a neccessary evil in this mindset.
    That is a very narrow view and leads to way more problems quicker than government bureaucracy. The government interfering with somebody or some corporation trying to infringe on my rights is not anti liberty.
    Corporations are ran by people who (on the basis of the libertarian mindset) earned their right to be there... and you seem to be confusing legislature with politics itself (remember there's a balance of checks and seperation of powers in the US), no one is denying that legislation is needed (that would be ridiculous), libertarians are far more lenient (probably an ironic term) though.
    I'm familiar with the libertarian mindset
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    645
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by umbradiago View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    George Bush was highly intelligent, although he gave the impression of being otherwise. His diplomacy and politics were superb, even if I do think his policies were awful.
    Then he is the greatest actor in history. Somehow, I doubt this. Even Reagan never rose above grade "b" actor status. What he IS, is a Bush. (did that sound like Bill?) If by "diplomacy and politics", you mean his bending and handshaking, yeah.
    You have a good and evil view of human behaviour, it's far more complex than that. Tony Blair was by no means a stupid man: Tony Blair in 'A Journey': On U.S. Leaders Bush, Clinton - TIME
    Tony Blair is indeed a smart and decent man. Watching events force him into becoming Bush's lap-dog was painful. Such is America's terrible impact worldwide. We boast of our freedom and deprive others of their own. Yeah, we're all human, but I don't see life as a titanic struggle between good and evil. It's over power; how to get it and how to increase it. Machiavelli. The common word for this is greed.
    Dave Wilson, PumaMan and grmpysmrf like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium
    To a libertarian healthcare is big government. Trust me.
    That's the fault of the libertarian.
    I don't think freedom means free to die of curable diseases. A government's job is to provide for the common welfare of its citizens. what's more "common welfare" than the health of it's citizens?

    Quote Originally Posted by umbradiago View Post
    Right. All the talk about "big government" is specious. It's size is irrelevant; the quality of government is what matters most. As our population increases and the complexity
    of business and commerce grows, should we not expect government regulation to expand ? As we are growing-up, should we not expect to have to buy larger-sized shoes ?
    You don't understand the mindset sir. The libertarian thinks the government should only interfere in minimal circumstances and that to do otherwise is a violation of liberty (since the state exercises authority over the individual), according to the libertarian, there is no such thing as an effective government (at least not in the sense you're implying). Government is bureaucracy and violates the rights of its citizens while offering them certain services (such as security), it is a neccessary evil in this mindset.
    That is a very narrow view and leads to way more problems quicker than government bureaucracy. The government interfering with somebody or some corporation trying to infringe on my rights is not anti liberty.
    Corporations are ran by people who (on the basis of the libertarian mindset) earned their right to be there... and you seem to be confusing legislature with politics itself (remember there's a balance of checks and seperation of powers in the US), no one is denying that legislation is needed (that would be ridiculous), libertarians are far more lenient (probably an ironic term) though.

    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by umbradiago View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    George Bush was highly intelligent, although he gave the impression of being otherwise. His diplomacy and politics were superb, even if I do think his policies were awful.
    Then he is the greatest actor in history. Somehow, I doubt this. Even Reagan never rose above grade "b" actor status. What he IS, is a Bush. (did that sound like Bill?) If by "diplomacy and politics", you mean his bending and handshaking, yeah.
    You have a good and evil view of human behaviour, it's far more complex than that. Tony Blair was by no means a stupid man: Tony Blair in 'A Journey': On U.S. Leaders Bush, Clinton - TIME
    But the situation Blair was thrown into dictated his behavior.
    You asked for evidence, i'm giving you the words of a highly intelligent man (PM who used to be a lawyer) and who knows him personally.
    Is he being truthful or politicking?
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by umbradiago View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by umbradiago View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    George Bush was highly intelligent, although he gave the impression of being otherwise. His diplomacy and politics were superb, even if I do think his policies were awful.
    Then he is the greatest actor in history. Somehow, I doubt this. Even Reagan never rose above grade "b" actor status. What he IS, is a Bush. (did that sound like Bill?) If by "diplomacy and politics", you mean his bending and handshaking, yeah.
    You have a good and evil view of human behaviour, it's far more complex than that. Tony Blair was by no means a stupid man: Tony Blair in 'A Journey': On U.S. Leaders Bush, Clinton - TIME
    Tony Blair is indeed a smart and decent man. Watching events force him into becoming Bush's lap-dog was painful. Such is America's terrible impact worldwide. We boast of our freedom and deprive others of their own. Yeah, we're all human, but I don't see life as a titanic struggle between good and evil. It's over power; how to get it and how to increase it. Machiavelli. The common word for this is greed.
    I'm skeptical of reducing human behaviour to one factor alone, certainly power is of enormous importance (that's what politics is) but I don't think this necessarily has to be detrimental to any form of progress. Not all politicians are greedy, and I think it's a gross simplification to say so. We need a radical transistion of the economic system (reduce monopoly influences) before any real change can be done.

    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium
    To a libertarian healthcare is big government. Trust me.
    That's the fault of the libertarian.
    I don't think freedom means free to die of curable diseases. A government's job is to provide for the common welfare of its citizens. what's more "common welfare" than the health of it's citizens?

    Quote Originally Posted by umbradiago View Post
    Right. All the talk about "big government" is specious. It's size is irrelevant; the quality of government is what matters most. As our population increases and the complexity
    of business and commerce grows, should we not expect government regulation to expand ? As we are growing-up, should we not expect to have to buy larger-sized shoes ?
    You don't understand the mindset sir. The libertarian thinks the government should only interfere in minimal circumstances and that to do otherwise is a violation of liberty (since the state exercises authority over the individual), according to the libertarian, there is no such thing as an effective government (at least not in the sense you're implying). Government is bureaucracy and violates the rights of its citizens while offering them certain services (such as security), it is a neccessary evil in this mindset.
    That is a very narrow view and leads to way more problems quicker than government bureaucracy. The government interfering with somebody or some corporation trying to infringe on my rights is not anti liberty.
    Corporations are ran by people who (on the basis of the libertarian mindset) earned their right to be there... and you seem to be confusing legislature with politics itself (remember there's a balance of checks and seperation of powers in the US), no one is denying that legislation is needed (that would be ridiculous), libertarians are far more lenient (probably an ironic term) though.
    I'm familiar with the libertarian mindset
    Not if you deny this simple fact your not.

    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium
    To a libertarian healthcare is big government. Trust me.
    That's the fault of the libertarian.
    I don't think freedom means free to die of curable diseases. A government's job is to provide for the common welfare of its citizens. what's more "common welfare" than the health of it's citizens?

    Quote Originally Posted by umbradiago View Post
    Right. All the talk about "big government" is specious. It's size is irrelevant; the quality of government is what matters most. As our population increases and the complexity
    of business and commerce grows, should we not expect government regulation to expand ? As we are growing-up, should we not expect to have to buy larger-sized shoes ?
    You don't understand the mindset sir. The libertarian thinks the government should only interfere in minimal circumstances and that to do otherwise is a violation of liberty (since the state exercises authority over the individual), according to the libertarian, there is no such thing as an effective government (at least not in the sense you're implying). Government is bureaucracy and violates the rights of its citizens while offering them certain services (such as security), it is a neccessary evil in this mindset.
    That is a very narrow view and leads to way more problems quicker than government bureaucracy. The government interfering with somebody or some corporation trying to infringe on my rights is not anti liberty.
    Corporations are ran by people who (on the basis of the libertarian mindset) earned their right to be there... and you seem to be confusing legislature with politics itself (remember there's a balance of checks and seperation of powers in the US), no one is denying that legislation is needed (that would be ridiculous), libertarians are far more lenient (probably an ironic term) though.

    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by umbradiago View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    George Bush was highly intelligent, although he gave the impression of being otherwise. His diplomacy and politics were superb, even if I do think his policies were awful.
    Then he is the greatest actor in history. Somehow, I doubt this. Even Reagan never rose above grade "b" actor status. What he IS, is a Bush. (did that sound like Bill?) If by "diplomacy and politics", you mean his bending and handshaking, yeah.
    You have a good and evil view of human behaviour, it's far more complex than that. Tony Blair was by no means a stupid man: Tony Blair in 'A Journey': On U.S. Leaders Bush, Clinton - TIME
    But the situation Blair was thrown into dictated his behavior.
    You asked for evidence, i'm giving you the words of a highly intelligent man (PM who used to be a lawyer) and who knows him personally.
    Is he being truthful or politicking?
    I don't see why he would be lying? (How would calling Bush smart have any significant advantage for him?) Do you have any evidence to suggest it other than 'I don't trust him so he must be lieing'?
    Last edited by Trivium; March 6th, 2014 at 03:57 PM.
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium
    I'm familiar with the libertarian mindset
    Not if you deny this simple fact your not.
    Not denying it just don't agree with it.

    I don't see why he would be lieing? (How would calling Bush smart have any significant advantage for him?) Do you have any evidence to suggest it other than 'I don't trust him so he must be lieing'?
    That's what makes him a politician. WHo knows if he will need W for something later on in life best not to burn bridges.
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    645
    Someone might speculate as to whether George W. Bush ever gave this matter any such attention. This observer has seen no reason to even suspect he has much going on upstairs. He was asked by a reporter if he had sometimes enlisted the advice of his father, on various political issues. W answered "No, I consult a higher-power on [these things]. God, I mean. HE meant.
    I can't begin to imagine the struggle of ego's at work, here. He declined to consult with his own father, only a former president himself, in order to honor a God he's only heard about. This is not the signature of intelligence.
    Dave Wilson and grmpysmrf like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    , in order to honor a God he's only heard about.
    Ah...not from his perspective as a Christian (and all other religions with deities) god actually talked to him--a confusion between his own thoughts and a higher power shared with about half of the American population (god used to talk to me as well).
    Dave Wilson and umbradiago like this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    645
    God "used to" talk to you ? Why did he stop, do you imagine ? Talk how ? through what means ?
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    So where are Obama's accomplishments?
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    It is interesting that many in the USA perceive Obama as a socialist. I recall seeing, I think through a link on this forum, the position of various world leaders on a two axis/four quadrant grid. Obama plotted in much the same place as Margaret Thatcher, (who was only matched in right wing behaviour by the alleged socialist Tony Blair).
    The Political Compass has gone over to the US Libertarian Party. That's a shame.
    Dave Wilson and dan hunter like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    So where are Obama's accomplishments?
    This will do for now: President Obama is Progressive. Here Are 235 Examples of Progress So Far | The PCTC* Blog

    About 250 of them.
    Dave Wilson and umbradiago like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    So where are Obama's accomplishments?
    Look 'em up. you're acting like a lazy poor person wanting everything handed to ya'
    Dave Wilson and umbradiago like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    So where are Obama's accomplishments?
    This will do for now: President Obama is Progressive. Here Are 235 Examples of Progress So Far | The PCTC* Blog

    About 250 of them.
    Ah Schneibster how will he ever learn if ya' keep doing things for him?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    , in order to honor a God he's only heard about.
    Ah...not from his perspective as a Christian (and all other religions with deities) god actually talked to him--...
    I like the old adage... if you talk to god you are a sane individual. If God talks to you, you are a nut job!
    umbradiago likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    645
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    So where are Obama's accomplishments?
    In no particular order, he got Osama bin Laden (not personally, of course, but if he doesn't have the guts it takes to send those brave guys, they don't go, and the main criminal behind 9/11 would still live), he endorsed TARP efforts and supported legislation to prevent home forclosures , he rescued both the auto industry and banking, he pushed-thru Wall St. reform (that's the market which functions as a vehicle of investment to enable the wealthy to get wealthier at the expense of everybody else and results in giant corporate conglomerates exporting American work to cheaper labor sources; see the movie if you haven't), he restored the respect of the free world in America, he worked hard to find common ground with an obstinate and obstructionist GOP-led House to lead the establishment of The Affordable Care Act, which despite a stumbling start, will be as important and essential to the pubic welfare (this word is in the Preamble to the Constitution !) as is FDR's Social Security Act, in time. He's done all this without a particle of willingness from the right to reach across the aisle. He ended a war in Iraq which should not have been started by Bush/Chaney fear- mongering in search of glory and war-profiteering. He has born a litany of absurd accusations and outright bullshit from the extreme-right Tea Party of angry white bigot's and done it with dignity and with enormous persistence. Obama is the very model of the idea which makes America unique and great; that anybody has a chance to rise by his own efforts to the highest office in the land. And he's not gonna' be a lame duck. The best is yet to come, the winds are blowing in his direction and there remains much work to do. Employment is returning, though grindingly slowly as the rich corporate interests continue to hoard their wealth. Money hoarded does nothing to promote growth and jobs, an this country has a trillion dollars in infrastructure repair to do with a work fork force badly in need of work. Obama has the best interests of the people in mind. His legacy will loom large in history. Wait 10 years and read David McCullough's Book on Barack Obama. Events are only truly understood by the passing of some time.
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    More to the point, everyone will remember the Republicans are racists this November.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    645
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    More to the point, everyone will remember the Republicans are racists this November.
    Well, everyone but Republicans. Racists and bigots seldom even suspect themselves of bias. Not all Obama critics are racist, though. Prejudice can come in many forms. I happen to dislike clowns for reasons I can't articulate. But I think the problem lies more in me than in them. If one never honestly examines whether he is prejudiced, then he probably is, and would be oblivious to it.
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    More to the point, everyone will remember the Republicans are racists this November.
    I seriously wonder who the repubs have to run for 2016.
    Same in California. Right now Jerry Brown has done a tremendous job fixing 8 years of Arnold Swarzenegger's bullsh!t. I don't think Brown's made a misstep yet.
    It's a complete head scratcher that some republican is going to try to run against him to challenge his reelection... What could anybody (don't care which party they're from) possibly be thinking, if they have an inkling that they could challenge this man? On what grounds? He didn't fix it fast enough? can't even make that accusation. Seriously, Brown should be running for reelection unopposed, anything more is a waste of time and money.
    babe and Schneibster like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by umbradiago View Post
    The American people did not fully grasp the gratitude it owed, in his time, to another guy from Illinois. History (and that is the better lens for viewing events) will regard Barack Obama as one of our best presidents. I won't name his accomplishments, though the list is long enough, but I will note the respect he receives around the world. Cynics dismiss politics as gone-bad; that it makes little difference which party or candidate one supports, they're all corrupt.
    I f we, as citizens, discard our participation in political discourse, we will get the kind of government we deserve. The GOP majority in the House has shut- down government, blocked and stalled badly-needed legislation, opposed every initiative proposed by the president, and smeared, slandered, and called him everything but a gentleman. Yes, politics matters. It's easy to shrug and say, who cares ? Self-governance is harder. Politics is the art of compromise. Obama knows this well and that the political extremes make most of the noise, but that decisions are forged somewhere towards the middle-ground. Is Obama a socialist ? I hope so. An atheist ? Probably. A realist ? Definitely.
    They may want to carve-out his image on Mt. Rushmore, some day. Some will insist it be on the back of the mountain. Call them cynics.
    The sad thing is (how) will Obama be remembered by history and the general population?


    R. Reagan brought in the corporate deregulation and trickle down economics that destroyed our country. And Reagan grew our deficits and national debt to dangerous levels.
    -But history and the general population considers Reagan to be one of our greatest presidents.


    G(H)W Bush was the truest of war hero's, and also a man of values and respect. And GHW Bush's understanding of economics helped save us from Reagan's exploding deficits and national debt.
    -But history and the general population gives GHW Bush no outward respect. And history considers him to be a liar, for sacrificing his own political carrier and raising taxes (so he could save our government from Reagan's deficits.)


    Bill Clinton turned Reagan's huge deficits and national debt into surpluses. And Clinton made America rich, powerful, and stable again.
    -But history and the general population remembers Clinton as the president who lied about sex in the White House.


    GW Bush enacted Reagan style tax cuts and corporate deregulation, and he grew our deficits and national debt to dangerous levels. Then Bush and Cheney lied about Iraq, they killed 1,000's of US soldiers for nothing, and killed over 100,000 innocent Iraqi people for nothing. Then Cheney brought his corporate pals into Iraq so they could make billions of dollars.
    -But history and the general population remembers GW Bush as a regular everyday guy who made a few mistakes.


    B. Obama has cut GW Bush's deficits and debt growth rate in 1/2. Obama has made the world respect us again . And he brought us out of delusion land, and he made our government believe in "the greenhouse effect" again.

    But how will history and the general population remember B. Obama?

    Perhaps as the first black president (and that's it.)


    The way it sits today history will remember R. Reagan as the greatest president of all the presidents listed above, and he was the one who brought in the supply side tax cuts and corporate deregulation that destroyed our country.

    But I have heard historical scientists say "You can't trust the history written by people who live in the country that they write about." Rather you have to study the unheard minority in that country and foreign sources, and then compare those 2 to the countries actual history. Then after much scientific investigation comparing the 3 history's, you will get something close to the actual history of that country.
    Last edited by chad; March 7th, 2014 at 02:29 PM.
    icewendigo and John Galt like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    I deleted my original post here, because it was rambling.

    Chad.
    Last edited by chad; March 7th, 2014 at 06:53 PM.
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,445
    Didn't vote for either Bush or Obama. Didn't vote for their opponents either.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    he pushed-thru Wall St. reform (that's the market which functions as a vehicle of investment to enable the wealthy to get wealthier at the expense of everybody else and results in giant corporate conglomerates exporting American work to cheaper labor sources;
    What reforms? There hasn't been any changes that I've seen, can you mention some of them?

    He ended a war in Iraq which should not have been started by Bush/Chaney fear- mongering in search of glory and war-profiteering.
    I thought that Congress as a whole voted for the war in Iraq which had both parties saying yes to the war. Which meant that Bush did not start the war but Congress was on board as well


    lead the establishment of The Affordable Care Act, which despite a stumbling start,
    Which was a nightmare because it wasn't done right which the Republicans stated and only wanted time to "fix" the problems within it. There are so many problems with that we really don't know if it will work at all for not as many people have signed up for it to really make it work right now.


    . He's done all this without a particle of willingness from the right to reach across the aisle.
    Because the right want to understand how his ideas are going to be paid for and how they were going to work. Ideas are a great idea but need MONEY to implement them, don't you agree?


    Looks like you just copied and pasted this whole paragraph , did you?
    babe likes this.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    738
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Didn't vote for either Bush or Obama. Didn't vote for their opponents either.
    I voted for Obama but it didn't make me feel that good. My politics are a mixture of dem/repub/libertarian principles, but I can't vote that way, so it boils down to voting for the lesser of evils.
    Dave Wilson, babe and umbradiago like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Americans should vote for who they want but be able to pass any legislation that they draw up. That way the Congress would write the bills but Americans would vote upon those bills in order for them to pass. This way would still let Congress stay the way it was intended but the people would decide which laws they want enacted not Congress.
    Dave Wilson and babe like this.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    738
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Americans should vote for who they want but be able to pass any legislation that they draw up. That way the Congress would write the bills but Americans would vote upon those bills in order for them to pass. This way would still let Congress stay the way it was intended but the people would decide which laws they want enacted not Congress.
    You can't be serious. I don't have a lot of faith in Congress but I have even less faith in the people. There is no way that Americans are going to take the time to learn each bill -- that's almost a full time job. I'm not going to do it. That's why we have reps -- so they will (hopefully) study the bills and (hopefully) make the best decisions. And can you imagine how much that would cost to set up national elections every week or so?
    Dave Wilson and grmpysmrf like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler
    He ended a war in Iraq which should not have been started by Bush/Chaney fear- mongering in search of glory and war-profiteering.
    I thought that Congress as a whole voted for the war in Iraq which had both parties saying yes to the war. Which meant that Bush did not start the war but Congress was on board as well
    I believe the REpublicans had a Super majority when that war was voted on. Not only that, but W and Cheney and the rest of the hangers-on created a climate of "With us or with terrorists" so any politician that wanted to continue to be a politician in office had to vote for Bush's war (let alone anything else they wanted) lest they be painted with the broad brush of "terrorist giving aid and comfort to the enemy," and a complacent non fact checking media let this happen with out reporting on it. That's why the republicans got every damn thing they wanted. Bush got Blank check after blank check from Congress without so much as a cough when the debt ceiling needed to be raised. A lot of conspiracy theorists think W's administration had something to do with 9/11. I do not. BUT, they certainly capitalized on tragedy for their own personal agenda very well. They milked it as a marketing strategy for all it could give.


    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler
    lead the establishment of The Affordable Care Act, which despite a stumbling start,
    Which was a nightmare because it wasn't done right which the Republicans stated and only wanted time to "fix" the problems within it. There are so many problems with that we really don't know if it will work at all for not as many people have signed up for it to really make it work right now.
    republicans Didn't predict it wasn't done right. Republincans just obstructed and then laughed as loud as they could as if they were the all seeing eye that knew better when the web site faltered. The problem was the programming in web site NOT the program itself. The fact that there was a stumbled start doesn't say anything about the programs validity or the actual running of said program.


    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler
    . He's done all this without a particle of willingness from the right to reach across the aisle.
    Because the right want to understand how his ideas are going to be paid for and how they were going to work.
    Double standard much? how come the republicans didn't care for one second where the money was going to come from when it was they that were spending it? Spending the country's Treasury on a few of the country's elite Republicans have no problem with this because they are facilitating it... spending the treasury on the country and it's citizens? now all of the sudden republican's are fiscally responsible. I got a bridge to sell you, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler
    Ideas are a great idea but need MONEY to implement them, don't you agree?
    apparently you don't, otherwise you would have screamed just as loud when W was shoving his bank card in and out of the country's ass as if it was an ATM.


    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler
    Looks like you just copied and pasted this whole paragraph , did you?
    does it matter?
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by umbradiago View Post
    The American people did not fully grasp the gratitude it owed, in his time, to another guy from Illinois. History (and that is the better lens for viewing events) will regard Barack Obama as one of our best presidents. I won't name his accomplishments, though the list is long enough, but I will note the respect he receives around the world. Cynics dismiss politics as gone-bad; that it makes little difference which party or candidate one supports, they're all corrupt.
    I f we, as citizens, discard our participation in political discourse, we will get the kind of government we deserve. The GOP majority in the House has shut- down government, blocked and stalled badly-needed legislation, opposed every initiative proposed by the president, and smeared, slandered, and called him everything but a gentleman. Yes, politics matters. It's easy to shrug and say, who cares ? Self-governance is harder. Politics is the art of compromise. Obama knows this well and that the political extremes make most of the noise, but that decisions are forged somewhere towards the middle-ground. Is Obama a socialist ? I hope so. An atheist ? Probably. A realist ? Definitely.
    They may want to carve-out his image on Mt. Rushmore, some day. Some will insist it be on the back of the mountain. Call them cynics.
    I was wondering if everything I said previously was correct, so I checked opinion polls of America's past presidents. And R. Reagan ranks first in favorable opinion polls every time with the presidents that I mentioned.


    But "In January 2013, New York Times journalist and statistician Nate Silver composed a composite list of previous presidential rankings by scholars for the purpose of predicting incumbent President Barack Obama's ranking among presidents."

    In the above poll R. Reagan ranks #10, just behind our founding fathers and a few war hero high character presidents. But surprisingly B. Obama ranks #17, and Obama ranks higher than Clinton or G(H)W Bush.

    Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Hopefully one day the corporations that control our government, news media, and country will be knocked out of power. And then historians and scholars (who don't live in our current corporate controlled belief system) will rank our presidents according to their character, actions, and how much they improved America.
    Last edited by chad; March 7th, 2014 at 02:41 PM.
    Dave Wilson and grmpysmrf like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    More to the point, everyone will remember the Republicans are racists this November.
    I seriously wonder who the repubs have to run for 2016.
    Same in California. Right now Jerry Brown has done a tremendous job fixing 8 years of Arnold Swarzenegger's bullsh!t. I don't think Brown's made a misstep yet.
    It's a complete head scratcher that some republican is going to try to run against him to challenge his reelection... What could anybody (don't care which party they're from) possibly be thinking, if they have an inkling that they could challenge this man? On what grounds? He didn't fix it fast enough? can't even make that accusation. Seriously, Brown should be running for reelection unopposed, anything more is a waste of time and money.
    At this point I think that's looking too far.

    The Democrats need to solidify Obama's legacy, and to do that we need to take back the House this year. Then we can put the force of law completely behind it, and prevent some future Republican from destroying it all at a single stroke.
    Dave Wilson and grmpysmrf like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Didn't vote for either Bush or Obama. Didn't vote for their opponents either.
    I voted for Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, and Obama. Proudly. And I'd do so again.
    Dave Wilson, PumaMan and grmpysmrf like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Didn't vote for either Bush or Obama. Didn't vote for their opponents either.
    I voted for Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, and Obama. Proudly. And I'd do so again.
    First presidential election was was Clinton Term #2.

    Clinton, Nader, Obama, Obama
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    You probably got a lot of heat on the Nader thing.

    I've never bought that; I think Gore failed to follow up in Florida and gave up the election.

    Were you disgusted in the Bush/Kerry election?
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    You probably got a lot of heat on the Nader thing.

    I've never bought that; I think Gore failed to follow up in Florida and gave up the election.

    Were you disgusted in the Bush/Kerry election?
    Oh yeah yeah, I forgot Kerry.. Throw Kerry in there between Nader and Obama.

    I really didn't have a problem with Kerry. I was completely shocked that Kerry lost. I thought for sure he was going to wipe the floor with Bush, It didn't happen. Kerry won all of the debates handily. Not sure what changed on election day.
    Yeah my dad gave me crap for voting Nader. but i stick to the old saying... I'd rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don't want and get it.
    If Gore would've been a little more democratic in his campaign instead of looking like Diet Republican I may have voted for him, but as far as I was concerned the green party was a very attractive rout.
    I'm registered green now as well. switched over from Independent when i noticed they got all religious.
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Reagan, Reagan, GHW Bush, GHW Bush, Dole, GW Bush, GW Bush (stupid me), Obama, Huntsman (write in)
    Dave Wilson and Schneibster like this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    738
    For POTUS, I'm getting to think that it doesn't really matter who you vote for. By the time a politician has risen that high, he owes so many people and special interest groups that he couldn't be "his own man" even if he wanted to.

    This goes for Congress too.
    Dave Wilson and grmpysmrf like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Reagan, Reagan, GHW Bush, GHW Bush, Dole, GW Bush, GW Bush (stupid me), Obama, Huntsman (write in)
    LOL, you awful Republican you.

    I'm surprised you went with Huntsman after seeing Obama, though.
    Dave Wilson and grmpysmrf like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    645
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by umbradiago View Post
    The American people did not fully grasp the gratitude it owed, in his time, to another guy from Illinois. History (and that is the better lens for viewing events) will regard Barack Obama as one of our best presidents. I won't name his accomplishments, though the list is long enough, but I will note the respect he receives around the world. Cynics dismiss politics as gone-bad; that it makes little difference which party or candidate one supports, they're all corrupt.
    I f we, as citizens, discard our participation in political discourse, we will get the kind of government we deserve. The GOP majority in the House has shut- down government, blocked and stalled badly-needed legislation, opposed every initiative proposed by the president, and smeared, slandered, and called him everything but a gentleman. Yes, politics matters. It's easy to shrug and say, who cares ? Self-governance is harder. Politics is the art of compromise. Obama knows this well and that the political extremes make most of the noise, but that decisions are forged somewhere towards the middle-ground. Is Obama a socialist ? I hope so. An atheist ? Probably. A realist ? Definitely.
    They may want to carve-out his image on Mt. Rushmore, some day. Some will insist it be on the back of the mountain. Call them cynics.
    The sad thing is (how) will Obama be remembered by history and the general population?


    R. Reagan brought in the corporate deregulation and trickle down economics that destroyed our country. And Reagan grew our deficits and national debt to dangerous levels.
    -But history and the general population considers Reagan to be one of our greatest presidents.


    G(H)W Bush was the truest of war hero's, and also a man of values and respect. And GHW Bush's understanding of economics helped save us from Reagan's exploding deficits and national debt.
    -But history and the general population gives GHW Bush no outward respect. And history considers him to be a liar, for sacrificing his own political carrier and raising taxes (so he could save our government from Reagan's deficits.)


    Bill Clinton turned Reagan's huge deficits and national debt into surpluses. And Clinton made America rich, powerful, and stable again.
    -But history and the general population remembers Clinton as the president who lied about sex in the White House.


    GW Bush enacted Reagan style tax cuts and corporate deregulation, and he grew our deficits and national debt to dangerous levels. Then Bush and Cheney lied about Iraq, they killed 1,000's of US soldiers for nothing, and killed over 100,000 innocent Iraqi people for nothing. Then Cheney brought his corporate pals into Iraq so they could make billions of dollars.
    -But history and the general population remembers GW Bush as a regular everyday guy who made a few mistakes.


    B. Obama has cut GW Bush's deficits and debt growth rate in 1/2. Obama has made the world respect us again . And he brought us out of delusion land, and he made our government believe in "the greenhouse effect" again.

    But how will history and the general population remember B. Obama?

    Perhaps as the first black president (and that's it.)


    The way it sits today history will remember R. Reagan as the greatest president of all the presidents listed above, and he was the one who brought in the supply side tax cuts and corporate deregulation that destroyed our country.

    But I have heard historical scientists say "You can't trust the history written by people who live in the country that they write about." Rather you have to study the unheard minority in that country and foreign sources, and then compare those 2 to the countries actual history. Then after much scientific investigation comparing the 3 history's, you will get something close to the actual history of that country.
    Chad, that is one of the clearest, sharpest, and most insightful comments I've ever heard ! George Sr. is and was a good man. His son never was, and will never be one. The "wimp factor" point is crystalline as was every thing else !
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by PumaMan View Post
    For POTUS, I'm getting to think that it doesn't really matter who you vote for. By the time a politician has risen that high, he owes so many people and special interest groups that he couldn't be "his own man" even if he wanted to.

    This goes for congressman too.
    Usually you can see a difference in policy between the two sides. This has always been true in every election I've voted in.
    Dave Wilson and umbradiago like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    738
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Usually you can see a difference in policy between the two sides.
    I thought sure we'd be out of Afghanistan within a year of Obama's first victory. We're still there.
    I didn't like it when Bush started the bailouts. Then Obama continued them.
    Dave Wilson and umbradiago like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by PumaMan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Usually you can see a difference in policy between the two sides.
    I thought sure we'd be out of Afghanistan within a year of Obama's first victory. We're still there.
    He said he'd get us out of Iraq, not Afghanistan. Iraq was the cluster-fuck; Afghanistan was a justified war.

    After seeing your updates: Yes, he did continue the bailouts. Bush had delayed them for two years and totally fucked up the economy. The crisis is the time to keep the banks solvent; the aftermath is the time to seek justice. Unfortunately, Obama was able to do the first, but not the second, due to the obstructionism of the Teapublican Party due to the fact he's black. They're afraid he'll be a hero and they'll be the goats. They're right, too. Preventing Obama from prosecuting the banksters and then blaming him for the bailout is one of the most perfidious, insidious, blatant Big Lies in politcal history.
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by umbradiago View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by umbradiago View Post
    The American people did not fully grasp the gratitude it owed, in his time, to another guy from Illinois. History (and that is the better lens for viewing events) will regard Barack Obama as one of our best presidents. I won't name his accomplishments, though the list is long enough, but I will note the respect he receives around the world. Cynics dismiss politics as gone-bad; that it makes little difference which party or candidate one supports, they're all corrupt.
    I f we, as citizens, discard our participation in political discourse, we will get the kind of government we deserve. The GOP majority in the House has shut- down government, blocked and stalled badly-needed legislation, opposed every initiative proposed by the president, and smeared, slandered, and called him everything but a gentleman. Yes, politics matters. It's easy to shrug and say, who cares ? Self-governance is harder. Politics is the art of compromise. Obama knows this well and that the political extremes make most of the noise, but that decisions are forged somewhere towards the middle-ground. Is Obama a socialist ? I hope so. An atheist ? Probably. A realist ? Definitely.
    They may want to carve-out his image on Mt. Rushmore, some day. Some will insist it be on the back of the mountain. Call them cynics.
    The sad thing is (how) will Obama be remembered by history and the general population?


    R. Reagan brought in the corporate deregulation and trickle down economics that destroyed our country. And Reagan grew our deficits and national debt to dangerous levels.
    -But history and the general population considers Reagan to be one of our greatest presidents.


    G(H)W Bush was the truest of war hero's, and also a man of values and respect. And GHW Bush's understanding of economics helped save us from Reagan's exploding deficits and national debt.
    -But history and the general population gives GHW Bush no outward respect. And history considers him to be a liar, for sacrificing his own political carrier and raising taxes (so he could save our government from Reagan's deficits.)


    Bill Clinton turned Reagan's huge deficits and national debt into surpluses. And Clinton made America rich, powerful, and stable again.
    -But history and the general population remembers Clinton as the president who lied about sex in the White House.


    GW Bush enacted Reagan style tax cuts and corporate deregulation, and he grew our deficits and national debt to dangerous levels. Then Bush and Cheney lied about Iraq, they killed 1,000's of US soldiers for nothing, and killed over 100,000 innocent Iraqi people for nothing. Then Cheney brought his corporate pals into Iraq so they could make billions of dollars.
    -But history and the general population remembers GW Bush as a regular everyday guy who made a few mistakes.


    B. Obama has cut GW Bush's deficits and debt growth rate in 1/2. Obama has made the world respect us again . And he brought us out of delusion land, and he made our government believe in "the greenhouse effect" again.

    But how will history and the general population remember B. Obama?

    Perhaps as the first black president (and that's it.)


    The way it sits today history will remember R. Reagan as the greatest president of all the presidents listed above, and he was the one who brought in the supply side tax cuts and corporate deregulation that destroyed our country.

    But I have heard historical scientists say "You can't trust the history written by people who live in the country that they write about." Rather you have to study the unheard minority in that country and foreign sources, and then compare those 2 to the countries actual history. Then after much scientific investigation comparing the 3 history's, you will get something close to the actual history of that country.
    Chad, that is one of the clearest, sharpest, and most insightful comments I've ever heard ! George Sr. is and was a good man. His son never was, and will never be one. The "wimp factor" point is crystalline as was every thing else !
    How was George Bush not a good man? Were the lives he saved and continues to save in Africa irrelevant?
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    How was George Bush not a good man? Were the lives he saved and continues to save in Africa irrelevant?
    Good man or bad he was a lousy President. He got us into a war we should never have been in and it cost three trillion dollars and multiplied the national debt by five. He tortured people under the auspices of the US government and has not been tried, convicted, and imprisoned, which is arguably the most heinous act of a President ever. He presided over the worst economy in ten decades after the best economy ever. He blew the surplus for nothing. He violated treaties left and right and trashed the diplomatic reputation of the US. He ignored the Iranians who wanted to make peace with us after 9/11 and instead we got ten years of Ahmadinejad. He created the second worst financial crisis in human history and then ran away and left it for someone else to fix.

    He has a serious case for being Worst President Evar.

    The only President who did as badly was Herbert Hoover, who sucked so bad they named the vacuum cleaner after him.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    How was George Bush not a good man? Were the lives he saved and continues to save in Africa irrelevant?
    Good man or bad he was a lousy President. He got us into a war we should never have been in and it cost three trillion dollars and multiplied the national debt by five. He tortured people under the auspices of the US government and has not been tried, convicted, and imprisoned, which is arguably the most heinous act of a President ever. He presided over the worst economy in ten decades after the best economy ever. He blew the surplus for nothing. He violated treaties left and right and trashed the diplomatic reputation of the US. He ignored the Iranians who wanted to make peace with us after 9/11 and instead we got ten years of Ahmadinejad. He created the second worst financial crisis in human history and then ran away and left it for someone else to fix.

    He has a serious case for being Worst President Evar.

    The only President who did as badly was Herbert Hoover, who sucked so bad they named the vacuum cleaner after him.
    He had to make very tough decisions in response to 9/11 and while I don't agree with Iraq the intention was not all bad. Boom-bust cycles have always existed under capitalism and actually iirc the economy wasn't too bad for a while and bounced up and down (until the financial crash, which btw Bush was pro regulation Domestic policy of the George W. Bush administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Yes he was responsible for crimes, but as he said himself iirc: 'I'd do it again if it saved lives'. I think the rest is hyperbole and has existed for a very long time... certainly it was made worse by violation of international law but America has been hated for a very long time.
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    How was George Bush not a good man? Were the lives he saved and continues to save in Africa irrelevant?
    Good man or bad he was a lousy President. He got us into a war we should never have been in and it cost three trillion dollars and multiplied the national debt by five. He tortured people under the auspices of the US government and has not been tried, convicted, and imprisoned, which is arguably the most heinous act of a President ever. He presided over the worst economy in ten decades after the best economy ever. He blew the surplus for nothing. He violated treaties left and right and trashed the diplomatic reputation of the US. He ignored the Iranians who wanted to make peace with us after 9/11 and instead we got ten years of Ahmadinejad. He created the second worst financial crisis in human history and then ran away and left it for someone else to fix.

    He has a serious case for being Worst President Evar.

    The only President who did as badly was Herbert Hoover, who sucked so bad they named the vacuum cleaner after him.
    He had to make very tough decisions in response to 9/11 and while I don't agree with Iraq the intention was not all bad. Boom-bust cycles have always existed under capitalism and actually iirc the economy wasn't too bad for a while and bounced up and down (until the financial crash, which btw Bush was pro regulation Domestic policy of the George W. Bush administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Yes he was responsible for crimes, but as he said himself iirc: 'I'd do it again if it saved lives'. I think the rest is hyperbole and has existed for a very long time... certainly it was made worse by violation of international law but America has been hated for a very long time.
    Keep in mind I lived through this.

    Attacking Afghanistan when they failed to turn bin Laden over was standard doctrine. Bush was fully within his rights, both as President, and acting as "The US," in attacking them, both under US and international law. I have never argued that.

    He was a complete idiot and made the worst strategic blunder in the history of the US when he pulled Tommy Franks off of bin Laden at Tora Bora and let him escape. This was incompetent in the worst imaginable way. I don't actually believe he was a direct traitor but he could hardly have damaged the US' strategic interests, not to mention our reputation, any worse. And he did this in order to have Franks start planning the invasion of Iraq. Franks even protested once. But then, of course, he good soldiered on. He was a pro. And ultimately, it's the President's mistake to make.

    And this is only one among many such blunders.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    How was George Bush not a good man? Were the lives he saved and continues to save in Africa irrelevant?
    Good man or bad he was a lousy President. He got us into a war we should never have been in and it cost three trillion dollars and multiplied the national debt by five. He tortured people under the auspices of the US government and has not been tried, convicted, and imprisoned, which is arguably the most heinous act of a President ever. He presided over the worst economy in ten decades after the best economy ever. He blew the surplus for nothing. He violated treaties left and right and trashed the diplomatic reputation of the US. He ignored the Iranians who wanted to make peace with us after 9/11 and instead we got ten years of Ahmadinejad. He created the second worst financial crisis in human history and then ran away and left it for someone else to fix.

    He has a serious case for being Worst President Evar.

    The only President who did as badly was Herbert Hoover, who sucked so bad they named the vacuum cleaner after him.
    He had to make very tough decisions in response to 9/11 and while I don't agree with Iraq the intention was not all bad. Boom-bust cycles have always existed under capitalism and actually iirc the economy wasn't too bad for a while and bounced up and down (until the financial crash, which btw Bush was pro regulation Domestic policy of the George W. Bush administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Yes he was responsible for crimes, but as he said himself iirc: 'I'd do it again if it saved lives'. I think the rest is hyperbole and has existed for a very long time... certainly it was made worse by violation of international law but America has been hated for a very long time.
    Keep in mind I lived through this.

    Attacking Afghanistan when they failed to turn bin Laden over was standard doctrine. Bush was fully within his rights, both as President, and acting as "The US," in attacking them, both under US and international law. I have never argued that.

    He was a complete idiot and made the worst strategic blunder in the history of the US when he pulled Tommy Franks off of bin Laden at Tora Bora and let him escape. This was incompetent in the worst imaginable way. I don't actually believe he was a direct traitor but he could hardly have damaged the US' strategic interests, not to mention our reputation, any worse. And he did this in order to have Franks start planning the invasion of Iraq. Franks even protested once. But then, of course, he good soldiered on. He was a pro. And ultimately, it's the President's mistake to make.

    And this is only one among many such blunders.
    If anything you living through it is a weakness not a strength as it is far more difficult to bracket and view it objectively (not to dismiss first hand accounts as they are enormously important, just pointing out that objectivity as a result of first-hand experience is not always the case, as in a court of law not relying primarily on one witness due to difficulties with memory). It seems Franks made an incredibly stupid decision but I can't seem to find the source that suggests he was called off by Bush???
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    I was posting on the Internet when Clinton's first election was being held.

    I have no idea what you're accusing me of having bad objectivity for; these are all objective observations that are easily proven by search, and if you claim not then specify which ones you think need documentation and I'll get it.

    Franks made no such decision. Bush pulled him off. This is simple history and trying to blame it on Franks was the first thing they tried when the story first came out. Are you going to trot out each of their excuses in turn to be refuted?
    Dave Wilson and grmpysmrf like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    I was posting on the Internet when Clinton's first election was being held.

    I have no idea what you're accusing me of having bad objectivity for; these are all objective observations that are easily proven by search, and if you claim not then specify which ones you think need documentation and I'll get it.

    Franks made no such decision. Bush pulled him off. This is simple history and trying to blame it on Franks was the first thing they tried when the story first came out. Are you going to trot out each of their excuses in turn to be refuted?
    I never accused you of lack of objectivity (you seem to have difficulty with pronouns) I simply meant to state having been there does not give you any access to truth (and can actually be worse, it was you who thought you would mention it in the first place). Second you didn't prove me with any evidence that Bush pulled Franks off... I have just googled it and cannot find it? Does common knowledge translate to conspiracy theory or is it a fact?
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    In his memoir, American General, Franks later described getting the November 21 telephone call from Rumsfeld relaying the President's orders while he was sitting in his office at MacDill Air Force Base in Florida. Franks and one of his aides were working on air support for the Afghan units being assembled to push into the mountains surrounding Tora Bora. Rumsfeld said the President wanted options for war with Iraq. Franks said the existing plan was out of date and that a new one should include lessons about precision weapons and the use of special operations forces learned in Afghanistan. ``Okay, Tom,'' Rumsfeld said, according to Franks. ``Please dust it off and get back to me next week.'' Franks described his reaction to Rumsfeld's orders this way: ``Son of a bitch. No rest for the weary.'' For critics of the Bush administration's commitment to Afghanistan, the shift in focus just as Franks and his senior aides were literally working on plans for the attacks on Tora Bora represents a dramatic turning point that allowed a sustained victory in Afghanistan to slip through our fingers. Almost immediately, intelligence and military planning resources were transferred to begin planning on the next war in Iraq. Though Fury, Berntsen and others in the field did not know what was happening back at CentCom, the drain in resources and shift in attention would affect them and the future course of the U.S. campaign in Afghanistan.

    Source: TORA BORA REVISITED: HOW WE FAILED TO GET BIN LADEN AND WHY IT MATTERS TODAY

    This material is not copyrighted and is available for free from the US Government.
    Dave Wilson and grmpysmrf like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    (you seem to have difficulty with pronouns)
    Your next insult will be reported.
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    In his memoir, American General, Franks later described getting the November 21 telephone call from Rumsfeld relaying the President's orders while he was sitting in his office at MacDill Air Force Base in Florida. Franks and one of his aides were working on air support for the Afghan units being assembled to push into the mountains surrounding Tora Bora. Rumsfeld said the President wanted options for war with Iraq. Franks said the existing plan was out of date and that a new one should include lessons about precision weapons and the use of special operations forces learned in Afghanistan. ``Okay, Tom,'' Rumsfeld said, according to Franks. ``Please dust it off and get back to me next week.'' Franks described his reaction to Rumsfeld's orders this way: ``Son of a bitch. No rest for the weary.'' For critics of the Bush administration's commitment to Afghanistan, the shift in focus just as Franks and his senior aides were literally working on plans for the attacks on Tora Bora represents a dramatic turning point that allowed a sustained victory in Afghanistan to slip through our fingers. Almost immediately, intelligence and military planning resources were transferred to begin planning on the next war in Iraq. Though Fury, Berntsen and others in the field did not know what was happening back at CentCom, the drain in resources and shift in attention would affect them and the future course of the U.S. campaign in Afghanistan.

    Source: TORA BORA REVISITED: HOW WE FAILED TO GET BIN LADEN AND WHY IT MATTERS TODAY

    This material is not copyrighted and is available for free from the US Government.
    "

    Two weeks after the Franks article was published and barely two months after publication of his own book, DeLong reversed the conclusion from his autobiography and echoed his former boss in an opinion article on November 1 in The Wall Street Journal. After defending the decision to rely heavily on local militia and the Pakistani Frontier Corps, DeLong wrote: ``Finally, most people fail to realize that it is quite possible that bin Laden was never in Tora Bora to begin with. There exists no concrete intel to prove that he was there at the time.''"

    The quote you posted doesn't even imply that Bush revoked the order... and I didn't read it all since I don't have time atm but I searched all instances of 'Franks' and it appears
    to me there wasn't even conclusive intel at the time that he was even there. So what are you talking about? Am I missing something? Not to mention much of this is speculation by the ludicrous John F Kerry...
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Enrico Fermi's Legacy
    By jocular in forum Physics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 3rd, 2013, 09:43 PM
  2. Reagan's Dark Legacy
    By mikepotter84 in forum History
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: July 3rd, 2013, 07:59 AM
  3. Toolmaker Legacy
    By zinjanthropos in forum Anthropology, Archaeology and Palaeontology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: October 29th, 2012, 07:39 PM
  4. Bourne Legacy
    By Ascended in forum Science-Fiction and Non-Fiction
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: August 10th, 2012, 04:04 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •