# GS needs to go



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/15/...ecommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine&_r=0

What on earth was he thinking? If Stephanopoulus doesn't immediately resign, he should be immediately fired. I'm a journalist. If I gave money to a politician, or the foundation of a former politician whose wife is a politician, I'd be fired. Immediately. Why don't the same rules apply once you start making six figures?


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Who _*ever*_ thought this guy was an unbiased reporter in the first place? Not me, and I'm a lifelong Democrat (with the odd lapse here and there).


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Actually I'm ok with it. I mean, it's not as though no one suspected that he was going to be an otherwise objective journalist.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^+1. I've never been a Clinton fan and I really have never thought of George Stephanoupolus as much of a journalist...really more of an analyst, with a gift for entertaining his listeners...sort of a Democratic version of a Bill O'Reilly trainee! :devil: Besides, we all exercise our unique penchants to contributing to our favored philanthropies. What's the problem here? :icon_scratch:


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^+1. I've never been a Clinton fan and I really have never thought of George Stephanoupolus as much of a journalist...really more of an analyst, with a gift for entertaining his listeners...sort of a Democratic version of a Bill O'Reilly trainee! :devil: Besides, we all exercise our unique penchants to contributing to our favored philanthropies. What's the problem here? :icon_scratch:


The problem is, ABC bills itself as a fair and objective source of news. Now, we can disagree on whether that is in fact true, and I would argue that there is inherent bias in all forms of human activity, but you, at least, have to make it look good, as good as you can. This opens the entire news division, I think, to charges of engrained political bias. No news organization should tolerate this and still call itself a news organization. If nothing else, he has no business whatsoever serving as a moderator in any presidential debate, which is where this was headed before these donations were publicized.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

I am not terribly familiar with the current contours of broadcast journalism. I imagine, however that many of the individuals who might be called upon to moderate or otherwise host election debates might have similar histories of contributing to politically inflected causes. 

Would having contributed to, say, former president Regan's library disqualify a journalist from moderating a debate?

Gurdon


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Gurdon said:


> I am not terribly familiar with the current contours of broadcast journalism. I imagine, however that many of the individuals who might be called upon to moderate or otherwise host election debates might have similar histories of contributing to politically inflected causes.
> 
> *Would having contributed to, say, former president Regan's library disqualify a journalist from moderating a debate?*
> 
> Gurdon


In my opinion, yes, it would. Reagan is not a universally acclaimed figure in today's political landscape. He is often cited by candidates as a role model. To make a contribution to anything related to Reagan signals a certain political disposition that is inappropriate for a journalist. I'd say the same thing about FDR. I think that you really have to go back to Lincoln before you can start allowing journalists to make contributions to presidential libraries.

What amazes me in this is the notion that what GS did, what O'Reilly has done, what others have done that demonstrate either political persuasions or dishonesty, is somehow OK. It isn't OK. This is dating me, but there was a good reason that they called Walter Cronkite the most trusted man in America. He never would have engaged in such things, and so when he did stray from being the objective teller of truth as he knew it, most infamously when he questioned U.S. involvement in Vietnam, people paid attention. "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America," LBJ said in response to Cronkite's reporting in 1968.

GS, Brian Williams, all these jokers/pretenders who work as anchors want to take on the mantle of Cronkite, but they don't want to do what is necessary to earn it. Yet, their employers promote them as such. What is necessary to earn it is being honest and as objective in appearance as possible. This stuff with GS and O'Reilly and others reminds of a media version of the Jordan Rules.


----------



## my19 (Nov 11, 2009)

As 32rr notes, ABC's decision to hire Stephanoupolus for its news division after he spent four years in the inner sanctum of the Clinton White House was an incredible breach of journalistic standards. Trotting him out as an occasional pundit to square off with Karl Rove is one thing. Making him an anchor in a legitimate news operation is unthinkable.

A journalist must always give the appearance of absolute impartiality. You don't have a social dinner with the mayor. You don't let your tennis buddy who's running for city council put a sign in your yard. You certainly don't spend years working closely with the President and then expect people to view you as impartial and unbiased. And you don't donate money to said President's foundation.

So ABC made a terrible decision. And if Stephanopoulos was any kind of a journalist, he would have known he could never appear to viewers as unbiased or impartial.

The notion of using him to moderate a presidential debate -- when one of those debating is the wife of his old boss -- makes my head explode.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

You said this better than I ever could.



my19 said:


> As 32rr notes, ABC's decision to hire Stephanoupolus for its news division after he spent four years in the inner sanctum of the Clinton White House was an incredible breach of journalistic standards. Trotting him out as an occasional pundit to square off with Karl Rove is one thing. Making him an anchor in a legitimate news operation is unthinkable.
> 
> A journalist must always give the appearance of absolute impartiality. You don't have a social dinner with the mayor. You don't let your tennis buddy who's running for city council put a sign in your yard. You certainly don't spend years working closely with the President and then expect people to view you as impartial and unbiased. And you don't donate money to said President's foundation.
> 
> ...


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Is he even a journalist? I mean, does he go around and get the story? Does he actually do his own investigative work?

As far as I'm concerned, if you're an anchor on TV, especially if you're a morning show person, you're reading what someone else wrote. 

Therefore, anyone taking him seriously should think twice. This goes for everyone on the morning shows, Fox included.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Many here seem unaware of the distinction between journalism and commentary. 

Stephanopoulos is not a journalist; he's a commenter (I refuse to use that un-word "commentator"). In that regard, he's no different from O'Reilly, Huckabee or Rachel Maddow. None of those people can pretend to any impartiality whatever.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Beg to differ. He is the lead anchor for ABC News (at least, that's what Wikipedia says--I don't get my news from television). He also moderated presidential debates in 2008. Neither of these assignments are jobs for commentators. They are jobs for people who should strive to be as objective as possible.

The most galling part of this, and there are lots of galling parts, was ABC News calling the donation "an honest mistake." Huh? If you are so stupid as to believe that you can do that in his line of work, then you are too stupid to be in that line of work, or too arrogant. Same goes for whomever at the network issued the "honest mistake" line. That person should be fired along with GS.



MaxBuck said:


> Many here seem unaware of the distinction between journalism and commentary.
> 
> Stephanopoulos is not a journalist; he's a commenter (I refuse to use that un-word "commentator"). In that regard, he's no different from O'Reilly, Huckabee or Rachel Maddow. None of those people can pretend to any impartiality whatever.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Beg to differ. He is the lead anchor for ABC News (at least, that's what Wikipedia says--I don't get my news from television). He also moderated presidential debates in 2008. Neither of these assignments are jobs for commentators. They are jobs for people who should strive to be as objective as possible.
> 
> The most galling part of this, and there are lots of galling parts, was ABC News calling the donation "an honest mistake." Huh? If you are so stupid as to believe that you can do that in his line of work, then you are too stupid to be in that line of work, or too arrogant. Same goes for whomever at the network issued the "honest mistake" line. That person should be fired along with GS.


I think the safer position, and one I've always taken, is that he's a partisan with a point of view and not objective at all.

When we start seeing these people, and the networks for that matter, for what they really are instead of what they pretend to be, we then come to the conclusion of why wouldn't he give money to his old pal.


----------



## mankson (Sep 27, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> I think the safer position, and one I've always taken, is that he's a partisan with a point of view and not objective at all.
> 
> When we start seeing these people, and the networks for that matter, for what they really are instead of what they pretend to be, we then come to the conclusion of why wouldn't he give money to his old pal.


Indeed. Better the devil you know...


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> I think the safer position, and one I've always taken, is that he's a partisan with a point of view and not objective at all.
> 
> *When we start seeing these people, and the networks for that matter, for what they really are instead of what they pretend to be*, we then come to the conclusion of why wouldn't he give money to his old pal.


Exactly. But it was not always this way. Once upon a time, anyone working for an alleged news organization, regardless of whether the position was janitor or anchor, would have been fired for what GS did. They are still pretending to be the networks of Cronkite's era.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Cronkite was a lefty hack too!

The difference now is that's it's harder to hide one's bias. 

As for Cronkite, I'm sure there are those who hold a romanticized view of that generation of journalists, but he, Murrow and the rest were all lefties.


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

MaxBuck said:


> Many here seem unaware of the distinction between journalism and commentary.
> 
> Stephanopoulos is not a journalist; he's a commenter (I refuse to use that un-word "commentator"). In that regard, he's no different from O'Reilly, Huckabee or Rachel Maddow. None of those people can pretend to any impartiality whatever.


Stephanopoulos may have been a commenter, or commentator, but when he took that position as lead anchor for ABC News, he became a journalist. As lead anchor, he gets to decide which stories will lead the news, which stories will be buried at the end of the newscast, and which stories will not make the news at all. So not only does he read the news, he gets to decide what becomes news. I think it was a very poor choice for ABC News to appoint someone as an anchor with such a clear bias in the first place. But in the world of nightly news, looks, likability, charm, and ratings matter most.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

32rollandrock said:


> Beg to differ. He is the lead anchor for ABC News


My apologies; I had no idea GS had moved on from commentary to actual reading of the news.

With that said, since news anchors are typically pretty faces rather than actual journalists, I'm still not sure I really care. I haven't relied on the commercial networks as my source of news for a good many years, in any event. Heck, al-Jazeera is more objective than any of our commercial networks ... what a sad commentary that is.


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

SG_67 said:


> Cronkite was a lefty hack too!
> 
> The difference now is that's it's harder to hide one's bias.
> 
> As for Cronkite, I'm sure there are those who hold a romanticized view of that generation of journalists, but he, Murrow and the rest were all lefties.


Peter Jennings and Katie Couric were the most liberal of them all, and they didn't even try to hide their views.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

This is what Cronkite had to say about his politics.

"I think being a liberal, in the true sense, is being nondoctrinaire, nondogmatic, non-committed to a cause - but examining each case on its merits. Being left of center is another thing; it's a political position. I think most newspapermen by definition have to be liberal; if they're not liberal, by my definition of it, then they can hardly be good newspapermen. If they're preordained dogmatists for a cause, then they can't be very good journalists; that is, if they carry it into their journalism."

[Interview with Ron Powers (Chicago Sun Times) for Playboy, 1973]"

"Leftie" is a pejorative label, and is not merely describing one's political position as left of center. The quotation is from 1973, when being liberal was considered normal and acceptable in America, even if you disagreed with the views in question. In 1973 I was a leftie. Walter Cronkite was an Establishment journalist. He was no more a "leftie" than LBJ.

Gurdon


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Would one be wrong to conclude that Stephanopoulos has become to the "Lefties/liberals" what O'Reilly is to the Right/conservatives? If so, is it time for George to resign from ABC (the perhaps most honorable, but least likely path to be taken in today's news reporting environment) and to begin production of his new show, "The Stephanopoulos Factor," replete with the tag line, 'Remember, the spin starts here and we're looking out for you!" LOL. 

PS: Why did ABC fire Geraldo Rivera for an undisclosed $200 contribution to mayoral candidate and seems inclined to let it slide with George? :devil:


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Gurdon said:


> This is what Cronkite had to say about his politics.
> 
> "I think being a liberal, in the true sense, is being nondoctrinaire, nondogmatic, non-committed to a cause - but examining each case on its merits. Being left of center is another thing; it's a political position. I think most newspapermen by definition have to be liberal; if they're not liberal, by my definition of it, then they can hardly be good newspapermen. If they're preordained dogmatists for a cause, then they can't be very good journalists; that is, if they carry it into their journalism."
> 
> ...


Lefties rarely see themselves as such and would rather call themselves progressives or whatever other terms makes them feel better.

Cronkite was such an arrogant ass he even took liberty to redefine the word liberal in his own terms.

Life is grand when you get to define what things mean and then conduct your professional affairs according to that definition.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Would one be wrong to conclude that Stephanopoulos has become to the "Lefties/liberals" what O'Reilly is to the Right/conservatives? If so, is it time for George to resign from ABC (the perhaps most honorable, but least likely path to be taken in today's news reporting environment) and to begin production of his new show, "The Stephanopoulos Factor," replete with the tag line, *'Remember, the spin starts here and we're looking out for you!" * LOL.
> 
> PS: Why did ABC fire Geraldo Rivera for an undisclosed $200 contribution to mayoral candidate and seems inclined to let it slide with George? :devil:


....and we're looking out for Hillary!


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

The way that I see this, there are really only 2 ways to look at this.

A - Why is it a big deal for anyone in the media to give money to a non-political charity?

OR

B - This is a big deal, because the Clinton Initiative is indeed a political body with charity status. 

If B, this is a HUGE problem for Hillary, because they have already had to restate donations, the taxes associated with those donations, and there seems to be very clear tie between negotiations with foreign countries while HRC was at state and donations to the foundations. This of course, assumes that the people who will vote for HRC care at all about any of this - which is fairly doubtful. Of course, the people who hate here will continue to do so, not matter what as well.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

It's B! Or at least it will be by the end of the year.

Secrecy is like catnip to reporters and journalists. They may have their biases but all thing equal, they're ambitious and want a scoop. 

Someone, somewhere, somehow, is going to come across a source who is going to give information not before made public. An ambitious investigative journalist will track the leads and report. 

The Clintons, with their pathological need for secrecy, will not say anything and the story will build.

Bill is old and tired and the charm has worn off. He's not running for office and his wife is a lousy candidate. What the Dems were thinking putting all of their eggs in one basket, and her in particular, I have no idea. There must be a paucity of talent on the bench. 

It will start to gnaw at her candidacy, she'll say something really stupid as she's already shown she's apt to do, and other stories about her emails, Libya, and other past dalliances from the 90's will continue to pop up.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Very interesting, and thanks for sharing. I'm too young to know, but I wonder whether the definition of "liberal" has changed since 1973, or whether it has somehow been twisted against its will. It's been turned into a dirty word, and I think that's unfortunate, even though I don't consider myself a liberal. Then again, I don't think that being conservative is anything to boast about.

Probably, surely, a topic for a different thread, but I'm beginning to hope that Elizabeth Warren makes a run. I've become enormously disenchanted with Hillary in recent weeks/months, first because of email-gate, but more importantly, this stuff about gifts to her husband's foundation by foreign interests seeking to corner the U.S. uranium market, which needed the blessing of the State Department while she was secretary of state. It just reeks. I'm not ready to go so far as SG and call her unelectable, but she's getting there in a hurry. And it's not that I necessarily want a Democrat in the White House, but I'm thoroughly unimpressed with the Republicans in the race.

I think that it would be good to have someone in the race who proudly waves the liberal banner. It's been so long, and win or lose, I think that a credible candidate who is a liberal would help keep things honest, perhaps help tamp down the inevitable pandering. I think also, given the stratification of income, and less importantly, issues such as the inability to arrive at sensible immigration reform, the rage we're now seeing toward police, unemployment or under-employment among college graduates with lots of debt, a liberal this time around might have a reasonable shot. A variation of the Reagan line, are you better off than you were four years ago. Instead, how has a steady diet of conservatism been working for you? That might resonate.

I don't know much about Warren, but I did speak with her about 15 years ago regarding, if memory serves, the credit counseling industry. I found her name via Google and just called her up at Harvard. I can't recall the substance of our conversation--it was a long time ago--but I do remember thinking that she was very gracious and accessible and down to earth. Not an endorsement at all, just a favorable impression.



Gurdon said:


> This is what Cronkite had to say about his politics.
> 
> "I think being a liberal, in the true sense, is being nondoctrinaire, nondogmatic, non-committed to a cause - but examining each case on its merits. Being left of center is another thing; it's a political position. I think most newspapermen by definition have to be liberal; if they're not liberal, by my definition of it, then they can hardly be good newspapermen. If they're preordained dogmatists for a cause, then they can't be very good journalists; that is, if they carry it into their journalism."
> 
> ...


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> I've become enormously disenchanted with Hillary in recent weeks/months,.....


I've been disenchanted with her since 1991. And her cookies are lousy.


----------



## sisco (Sep 20, 2014)

SG_67 said:


> Cronkite was a lefty hack too!
> 
> The difference now is that's it's harder to hide one's bias.
> 
> As for Cronkite, I'm sure there are those who hold a romanticized view of that generation of journalists, but he, Murrow and the rest were all lefties.


Thank You for stating truth. Liberals had a monopoly on all media until recent years. GS was a Clinton campaign operative during the 1992 campaign.
The mainstream media is an appendage of the Democrat national Committee.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

This is nonsense.



sisco said:


> Thank You for stating truth. Liberals had a monopoly on all media until recent years. GS was a Clinton campaign operative during the 1992 campaign.
> The mainstream media is an appendage of the Democrat national Committee.


----------



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> I wonder whether the definition of "liberal" has changed since 1973, or whether it has somehow been twisted against its will. It's been turned into a dirty word, and I think that's unfortunate, even though I don't consider myself a liberal. Then again, I don't think that being conservative is anything to boast about.


the term 'Liberal' has indeed been twisted against it's will imo. Those on the Right do in fact use it as a pejorative, just like Communist or Socialist. I do support a lot of Liberal policies but there are plenty I don't support. What I do not understand is the Conservative ideology, which purports to stand for liberty and small government but does nothing of the sort.



> Probably, surely, a topic for a different thread, but I'm beginning to hope that Elizabeth Warren makes a run. I've become enormously disenchanted with Hillary in recent weeks/months, first because of email-gate, but more importantly, this stuff about gifts to her husband's foundation by foreign interests seeking to corner the U.S. uranium market, which needed the blessing of the State Department while she was secretary of state. It just reeks. I'm not ready to go so far as SG and call her unelectable, but she's getting there in a hurry. And it's not that I necessarily want a Democrat in the White House, but I'm thoroughly unimpressed with the Republicans in the race.


I wished Warren would run as well, but she's already decided this wasn't going to happen. I am glad that Bernie Sanders has thrown his hat in the ring - aside from Warren he's one of the few Dems left who seem to champion the lower and middle class of America, not to mention calling out those who have been screwing this country with endless wars, pandering to the wealthy and messing with the economy. He doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning the Democratic primary but he'll surely give HRC a run for her money.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> This is nonsense.


Is it really?

Compare:

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/us/politics/11obama.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

To:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/us/politics/marco-rubio-2016-presidential-campaign.html


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

gaseousclay said:


> the term 'Liberal' has indeed been twisted against it's will imo. *Those on the Right do in fact use it as a pejorative, just like Communist or Socialist*. I do support a lot of Liberal policies but there are plenty I don't support. What I do not understand is the Conservative ideology, which purports to stand for liberty and small government but does nothing of the sort.
> 
> *I wished Warren would run as well, but she's already decided this wasn't going to happen*. I am glad that Bernie Sanders has thrown his hat in the ring - aside from Warren he's one of the few Dems left who seem to champion the lower and middle class of America, not to mention calling out those who have been screwing this country with endless wars, pandering to the wealthy and messing with the economy. He doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning the Democratic primary but he'll surely give HRC a run for her money.


Totally agree with the bastardization of the word "liberal." It's hurled like some sort of insult, and I've always questioned the intelligence of those who do so. It makes me think that they're so neck-deep in ideology that they can't think for themselves.

As for Warren, it is still early. Lots of stuff can happen between now and the proverbial then. If Clinton scandals keep surfacing and polls show that HRC is tanking, a draft-Warren movement isn't impossible, and it might prove hard to resist. Tying the fate of the Democratic Party to HRC, if indeed she continues on the present course, might prove so unpalatable that another viable candidate will surface.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ The Dems have made their bed and let them sleep in it. Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders to a lesser degree, are boutique candidates. They have incredibly limited appeal.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> Is it really?
> 
> Compare:
> 
> ...


Not convinced.

I'm guessing that you are making the argument that the 2007 story is fawning and the latter story more critical. That may be true to an extent, but, ultimately, I think that sort of argument here fails. For one thing, the articles were written by different people and, likely, edited by different people. They also involved different candidates at different points in time. Contrary to what some believe, the NYT isn't a monolithic institution where ideology is cooked up in some back room and then implanted in the brains of employees via micro chip. No major media organization works that way.

Show me a story written by the same authors on the same subject on the same day, or, at least, a story on the same subject on the same day that appeared in different publications and we might have something to compare. But this, really, is apples and oranges.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> ^ The Dems have made their bed and let them sleep in it. Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders to a lesser degree, are boutique candidates. They have incredibly limited appeal.


Don't underestimate the power of an unabashedly liberal candidate backed by a competent campaign staff. Whether Warren is or could be that candidate, I don't know. But the socio-economics/demographics suggest that a liberal, for the first time in decades, wouldn't be DOA.


----------



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> Don't underestimate the power of an unabashedly liberal candidate backed by a competent campaign staff. Whether Warren is or could be that candidate, I don't know. But the socio-economics/demographics suggest that a liberal, for the first time in decades, wouldn't be DOA.


agreed. Sanders has raised around $4 million since the launch of his campaign. This may not amount to much when compared to HRC, who likely has tens of millions at her fingertips, but it still shows that he's a viable candidate. I honestly don't see how the current pool of Conservatives is any different from the Conservative train wreck we saw in '12 and '08. I've said it before and i'll say it again - Jon Huntsman was the only Conservative candidate with an ounce of intelligence. The rest had proven themselves to be too Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs, and I have no doubt the current Republican candidates will be just as wacky.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Not convinced.
> 
> I'm guessing that you are making the argument that the 2007 story is fawning and the latter story more critical. That may be true to an extent, but, ultimately, I think that sort of argument here fails. For one thing, the articles were written by different people and, likely, edited by different people. They also involved different candidates at different points in time. Contrary to what some believe, the NYT isn't a monolithic institution where ideology is cooked up in some back room and then implanted in the brains of employees via micro chip. No major media organization works that way.
> 
> Show me a story written by the same authors on the same subject on the same day, or, at least, a story on the same subject on the same day that appeared in different publications and we might have something to compare. But this, really, is apples and oranges.


Stories aren't edited? There's no editorial review?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Don't underestimate the power of an unabashedly liberal candidate backed by a competent campaign staff. Whether Warren is or could be that candidate, I don't know. But the socio-economics/demographics suggest that a liberal, for the first time in decades, wouldn't be DOA.


You're kidding right? After the last 8 years?


----------



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> You're kidding right? After the last 8 years?


Obama is not perfect but he's done far more for this country than his predecessor. There seems to be political amnesia when it comes to the damage done by the Bush administration and how much of it Obama had to clean up. I'm no Obama fanboy and there's a lot to criticize him for, but let's not forget his accomplishments


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

gaseousclay said:


> Obama is not perfect but he's done far more for this country than his predecessor. There seems to be political amnesia when it comes to the damage done by the Bush administration and how much of it Obama had to clean up. I'm no Obama fanboy and there's a lot to criticize him for, but let's not forget his accomplishments


And what exactly were those?


----------



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> And what exactly were those?


Google is your friend. honestly, it doesn't matter what accomplishments I quote, because they will be met with criticism


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Why should I google? I'm asking for your opinion. You're the one who indicated his accomplishments. So what exactly have those been?

You can criticize GWB all you want and perhaps in hindsight Iraq could have been handled differently, but we were there and what are we faced with now? How's Afghanistan going? 

How about Russia? How is our relationship with the Gulf states? Are we more or less unified as a nation? How is our economy doing in his 7th year vs. how it's done 7 years after other major recessions? 

How is Obamacare working out?


----------



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ Why should I google? I'm asking for your opinion. You're the one who indicated his accomplishments. So what exactly have those been?
> 
> You can criticize GWB all you want and perhaps in hindsight Iraq could have been handled differently, but we were there and what are we faced with now? How's Afghanistan going?
> 
> ...


Let's see, off the top of my head Obama brought us out of a depression, just barely, but the unemployment rate is better than it was in '08. He ended the war in Iraq and he's called for withdrawal of troops in Afghanistan. He took out Bin Laden and Gaddafi, something Bush couldn't do in two terms as POTUS. He helped save the auto industry, which would've plunged the country into a deeper recession had he not done so. He bailed out Wall Street, which I don't think he should've done since it was they who helped bring us into a recession.

This is just a few examples but is by no means complete, hence the reason I told you to Google it. Again, there's plenty of criticism that can be thrown at Obama but his positive accomplishments outweigh the negative ones imo, it's just that critics choose to focus on the negative.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

He could have better spent the 75K on a haircut or two and some better ties.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> Stories aren't edited? There's no editorial review?


Not in the way that you might believe or wish. As I explained, stories are written and edited by individuals, and no two people are alike. Contrary to popular belief, stories don't go to some central ideological review desk prior to publication. Furthermore, unless it's stories on the same news event, it's apples and oranges. You're talking about stories written eight years apart involving entirely different protagonists--putting them side by side demonstrates absolutely nothing. Lastly, the NYT should be commended for putting a public editor on the payroll who looks out for the public interest and has shown no hesitation in calling out ideological/political bias at the paper when she sees it. I think that she's done an admirable job in that regard. It's a lot more than can be said for certain other news organizations.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> ^ Why should I google? I'm asking for your opinion. You're the one who indicated his accomplishments. So what exactly have those been?
> 
> You can criticize GWB all you want and *perhaps in hindsight Iraq could have been handled differently*, but we were there and what are we faced with now? How's Afghanistan going?
> 
> ...


Boy, is that the understatement of the year, or what? Except for starting a senseless war that has resulted in tens of thousands of lost lives while generating ill will for America across the globe, and except for economic policies that contributed to the crash of the stock market and the economy overall, GWB was a pretty good guy. Is that what you're saying? I'm not saying Obama is perfect--far from it--but his predecessor left a mess of epic proportion. I'm hard-pressed to think of a bigger mess left behind since FDR or Lincoln took office.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

gaseousclay said:


> Let's see, off the top of my head Obama brought us out of a depression, just barely, but the unemployment rate is better than it was in '08. He ended the war in Iraq and he's called for withdrawal of troops in Afghanistan. He took out Bin Laden and Gaddafi, something Bush couldn't do in two terms as POTUS. He helped save the auto industry, which would've plunged the country into a deeper recession had he not done so. He bailed out Wall Street, which I don't think he should've done since it was they who helped bring us into a recession.
> 
> This is just a few examples but is by no means complete, hence the reason I told you to Google it. Again, there's plenty of criticism that can be thrown at Obama but his positive accomplishments outweigh the negative ones imo, it's just that critics choose to focus on the negative.


The recession was technically over when he came to office, or I think the first quarter he was in so that doesn't count. The overall recovery and GDP growth is the worst ever coming out of a recession since such things were tracked.

Took out Qaddafi? How well has that worked out? Bin Laden? Yes, there's cosmic justice in the world but last I checked it was the SEALS that took him out, tracked down by intelligence gathered via methods that the current POTUS has claimed were unAmerican. I think Bin Laden had been reduced to watching coverage of himself and critiquing his video appearances.

Where was the prescience on ISIS/ISIL? The JV squad. That was the al Qaeda of its time. Yes Obama pulled out troops from Iraq and look at it now. Presidents don't get to rewrite history and must know that history does not start and stop with them. Whether he agreed with it or not, our fate in the Middle East was in large part tied to Iraq. It was his task to fulfill and now it's on the verge of collapse.

As for the Wall Street bail out, that was started under the Bush admin and largely through the Fed.

Obama didn't "inherit" anything. He gladly asked for it when he asked for people to vote for him and today our standing in the world is damaged due to vague red, reddish lines and stagnant wage and job growth.

You can only blame the guy before you for so long dude!


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Boy, is that the understatement of the year, or what? Except for starting a senseless war that has resulted in tens of thousands of lost lives while generating ill will for America across the globe, and except for economic policies that contributed to the crash of the stock market and the economy overall, GWB was a pretty good guy. Is that what you're saying? I'm not saying Obama is perfect--far from it--but his predecessor left a mess of epic proportion. I'm hard-pressed to think of a bigger mess left behind since FDR or Lincoln took office.


Really? So I guess for your thoughts to be accurate, you would have to consider that 9/11 was totally planned between 1/21/01 and 9/10/01. And I forget, when did the recession in the early 2000's start? Finally, what policies was it who led to the housing bust and the economy tanking again? And who passed them?

And this is the problem with hypotheticals. You are assuming that all other things work out as you want to pretend they do. Iraq was relatively stable after the surge and Bush didn't withdraw the troops, so you can't really out that on him.

These partial hindsight arguments are worthless and lack total perspective. You can't accurately judge a president for 75-100 years. Case in point is Truman.

Edit - this is not a blanket defense of Bush. But, as a historian, I am loathe to accept the lazy approaches of wholesale attacks that became fashionable with the Vietnam War.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

All of this hindsight and blaming this former Pres. or that former Pres. is ridiculous. 

The fact is we are where we are. The great failure of Barack Obama is his lack of vision and ability to think strategically. He saw Iraq as a big mistake, and what does one do when confronted with someone's mistake? Why you enact policies that are completely at odds from the old policies. Unfortunately he didn't have the vision and lacked any capacity for strategic thought to understand that the fundamental calculus of the Middle East had changed as a result of the war. Whether he liked it or not, simply reversing course was not going to bring back the world he knew. 

The current disaster lies squarely on his (BHO) shoulders. He decided to cut and run. He decided to distance himself from Israel and look to cut a deal with Iran. He's responsible for damaging our relations with our Gulf allies. 

The problem of Libya is solely his as is the problem of Syria and ISIS. ISIS started in Syria, then metastasized into Iraq. An over aggressive Russia is his responsibility as well. 

His thought processes are wholly amateurish and don't take into account any kind of 3-dimensional thinking.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Who said anything about 9/11? I don't see how that affects the accuracy of my thoughts. My quibble is with the response to 9/11. It is hard to conceive of a worse response than the one we got from Dubya. Not only did tens of thousands of people die, his escapade into Iraq only made matters worse from a geo-political perspective. We had the whole world on our side on Sept. 12, 2001. In barely more than a year, we had the whole world against us. That takes some doing. If Dubya hadn't invaded Iraq in the first place, there would have been no surge. Sheesh, even his brother Jeb is distancing himself from the Iraq blunder. At some point, we will come to terms with it just as we eventually did with Vietnam. It was a huge mistake that tarnished America, and it was completely avoidable. You really can't argue with that.

The recession began in 2007. I'm not getting where you're coming up with a date of the early 2000's. It began entirely on Dubya's watch. He didn't have the foresight to see it or the smarts to address it when it hit. Now, you can say that about a lot of people. We'll never know whether the same thing would have happened if someone else had been in the White House when the economy collapsed, but we know one thing for sure: Dubya was.

It's true that you can't accurately judge a president until decades pass, but no Vegas oddsmaker would take a bet on Dubya being judged well by historians. His personal life is a shambles of drunkenness, dodging Vietnam and using his father's name to try making it in the business world, and he utterly failed at that. He never held a real job in his entire life. He was a war monger who lied and stretched the truth to build support for the invasion, and he ignored warnings that post-invasion Iraq would be a handful. Instead, he did a photo op with the infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner and then lied about who put up the banner--it was his staff, not the military personnel who did it, and if Dubya didn't know, then he should have fired the people who lied when he found out that they had lied. Nope. What kind of meglomaniac would fly out to an aircraft carrier for a photo op like that in the first place?



vpkozel said:


> Really? So I guess for your thoughts to be accurate, you would have to consider that 9/11 was totally planned between 1/21/01 and 9/10/01. And I forget, when did the recession in the early 2000's start? Finally, what policies was it who led to the housing bust and the economy tanking again? And who passed them?
> 
> And this is the problem with hypotheticals. You are assuming that all other things work out as you want to pretend they do. Iraq was relatively stable after the surge and Bush didn't withdraw the troops, so you can't really out that on him.
> 
> ...


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> All of this hindsight and blaming this former Pres. or that former Pres. is ridiculous.
> 
> *The fact is we are where we are*. The great failure of Barack Obama is his lack of vision and ability to think strategically. He saw Iraq as a big mistake, and what does one do when confronted with someone's mistake? Why you enact policies that are completely at odds from the old policies. Unfortunately he didn't have the vision and lacked any capacity for strategic thought to understand that the fundamental calculus of the Middle East had changed as a result of the war. Whether he liked it or not, simply reversing course was not going to bring back the world he knew.
> 
> ...


Agreed that we are where we are. I won't defend Obama. I think that he's been a huge disappointment. But I will say that the Middle East is a sticky wicket no matter what. It is very easy to criticize the man in the arena. and Obama may have made some mistakes. I don't know. The question is, what would have been the better course? Dubya's follies severely restricted Obama's capacity to use the military for nigh anything. You may call it cut-and-run, but the reality is, the country was, is, weary of war. You can't expect this nation to tolerate a state of perpetual war. And I don't see how you can blame him for Russia. What was he supposed to do to curtail Putin's expansionism?

While I agree that we are where we are, Dubya is much more responsible for damaging relations in the Gulf than Obama. A unnecessary land war in the Middle East? Are you kidding me? Saying "that was then, this is now" isn't going to convince anyone in the Middle East that U.S. stripes have changed.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Agreed that we are where we are. I won't defend Obama. I think that he's been a huge disappointment. But I will say that the Middle East is a sticky wicket no matter what. It is very easy to criticize the man in the arena. and Obama may have made some mistakes. I don't know. The question is, what would have been the better course? Dubya's follies severely restricted Obama's capacity to use the military for nigh anything. You may call it cut-and-run, but the reality is, the country was, is, weary of war. You can't expect this nation to tolerate a state of perpetual war. And I don't see how you can blame him for Russia. What was he supposed to do to curtail Putin's expansionism?
> 
> While I agree that we are where we are, Dubya is much more responsible for damaging relations in the Gulf than Obama. A unnecessary land war in the Middle East? Are you kidding me? Saying "that was then, this is now" isn't going to convince anyone in the Middle East that U.S. stripes have changed.


What would have been the better course is a question for philosophers and historians. It has no place in the real world. In the real world, BHO asked for the account. He wanted the business. He wanted to be the turnaround artist and he lacked the instincts to do so.

The country may have been wary of war but it's a leaders job to lead, not follow. That's what politicians do.

As for Putin, I blame him because he hit the "reset button". That means he totally wiped clean whatever had taken place before and instituted his own brand of diplomacy and handling of Russia.

I would be one thing if BHO came into office and continued everything the way it had been, but he didn't. He came in and radically re-wrote the playbook. Fine. He's POTUS and he can do that but he also needs to take responsibility for the outcomes.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Who said anything about 9/11? I don't see how that affects the accuracy of my thoughts. My quibble is with the response to 9/11. It is hard to conceive of a worse response than the one we got from Dubya. Not only did tens of thousands of people die, his escapade into Iraq only made matters worse from a geo-political perspective. We had the whole world on our side on Sept. 12, 2001. In barely more than a year, we had the whole world against us. That takes some doing. If Dubya hadn't invaded Iraq in the first place, there would have been no surge. Sheesh, even his brother Jeb is distancing himself from the Iraq blunder. At some point, we will come to terms with it just as we eventually did with Vietnam. It was a huge mistake that tarnished America, and it was completely avoidable. You really can't argue with that.


I said something about 9/11, because even you have to acknowledge that without 9/11 we would not have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq



> The recession began in 2007. I'm not getting where you're coming up with a date of the early 2000's. It began entirely on Dubya's watch. He didn't have the foresight to see it or the smarts to address it when it hit. Now, you can say that about a lot of people. We'll never know whether the same thing would have happened if someone else had been in the White House when the economy collapsed, but we know one thing for sure: Dubya was.


The St. Louis fed disagrees.

https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/03/09/Kliesen.pdf

And the big one later in his presidency was caused by a housing bubble and derivatives tied to housing. And do you know who allowed those for the most part? Hint, his name was not George.


> It's true that you can't accurately judge a president until decades pass, but no Vegas oddsmaker would take a bet on Dubya being judged well by historians. His personal life is a shambles of drunkenness, dodging Vietnam and using his father's name to try making it in the business world, and he utterly failed at that. He never held a real job in his entire life. He was a war monger who lied and stretched the truth to build support for the invasion, and he ignored warnings that post-invasion Iraq would be a handful. Instead, he did a photo op with the infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner and then lied about who put up the banner--it was his staff, not the military personnel who did it, and if Dubya didn't know, then he should have fired the people who lied when he found out that they had lied. Nope. What kind of meglomaniac would fly out to an aircraft carrier for a photo op like that in the first place?


Much like Vietnam, distance has a way of putting things into clearer view. If the invasion of Iraq was the catharsis for crating a stable, democratic(ish) middle east, then it will be an unmitigated success. Europe had to go through centuries of wars - much more bloody than this one - before it is the continent you know today.

And again, this is where hypotheticals are used only by those who want to portray a point of view.

If I ask you if Munich and Chamberlain was a failure, you would likely say yes. But if I then tell you that everything that happened in the early years WW2 would have played out exactly the same, just 5 years hence - and that the Germans have nuclear weapons to use on Russia or England, then Munich doesn't look so bad after all.

The rest of your anti Bush diatribe is simply tripe and reflects not only an ignorance of history, but an apparent willingness to just make things up to suit your hate.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

I don't think it's fair for you or anyone to say Obama--or any other president--screwed this up or that up or the other thing up without offering here's-what-he-should-have-done-instead, particularly when we are talking about issues unfolding as we speak. That, in my opinion, is weak sauce. If you want to criticize Obama for the way he played the hand that he was dealt, fine, but tell me how you would have played that hand differently.



SG_67 said:


> What would have been the better course is a question for philosophers and historians. It has no place in the real world. In the real world, BHO asked for the account. He wanted the business. He wanted to be the turnaround artist and he lacked the instincts to do so.
> 
> The country may have been wary of war but it's a leaders job to lead, not follow. That's what politicians do.
> 
> ...


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> I said something about 9/11, because even you have to acknowledge that without 9/11 we would not have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq
> 
> The St. Louis fed disagrees.
> 
> ...


I was talking about the recession of 2007, not the post-9/11 recession. As I said, we can't say whether a president other than Dubya would have foreseen it or prevented it, but, end of day, he was in charge, so he should take at least some ownership. And Dubya most certainly did promote home ownership for everyone, regardless of financial wherewithal, and so he bears at least some of the blame for the housing bubble.

Of course we would not have invaded Iraq absent 9/11. That was the pretext. Invading a country based on a false pretext is wrong. Am I missing something here?

Munich and Chamberlain are getting pretty far into the hypothetical weeds, but I'll bite. What if I told you that if, at the end of WWI, the Allies would not have stuck Germany with crippling reparations and had, instead, had the wisdom to help rebuild Germany and accomplish a just peace? In that case, WWII may well have never happened. This is the sort of fruit that that wise leadership produces. Fast forward to Dubya to see yet another example of what poor leadership produces.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> I was talking about the recession of 2007, not the post-9/11 recession. As I said, we can't say whether a president other than Dubya would have foreseen it or prevented it, but, end of day, he was in charge, so he should take at least some ownership. And Dubya most certainly did promote home ownership for everyone, regardless of financial wherewithal, and so he bears at least some of the blame for the housing bubble.
> 
> Of course we would not have invaded Iraq absent 9/11. That was the pretext. Invading a country based on a false pretext is wrong. Am I missing something here?
> 
> Munich and Chamberlain are getting pretty far into the hypothetical weeds, but I'll bite. What if I told you that if, at the end of WWI, the Allies would not have stuck Germany with crippling reparations and had, instead, had the wisdom to help rebuild Germany and accomplish a just peace? In that case, WWII may well have never happened. This is the sort of fruit that that wise leadership produces. Fast forward to Dubya to see yet another example of what poor leadership produces.


Well, sure, but if we are playing the hypothetical, I get to have everything work out perfectly game, then how does Dubya look if there is peace in the Middle East and it is full of stable democracies? As much as you might want to belittle him now, you have no idea how it will play out. Remember, Lincoln was despised by many in the Union and if Atlanta had not fallen, there was a very real chance he would have lost reelection.

And, given that you were talking about Bush causing a recession, and I clearly said the recession of the early 2000's and you were trying to say that it didn't start until 2007, I think it is a pretty safe bet that you either had forgotten about the recession that Clinton left or didn't know about it.

But the main point is that hypotheticals are pretty useless.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> Well, sure, but if we are playing the hypothetical, I get to have everything work out perfectly game, then *how does Dubya look if there is peace in the Middle East and it is full of stable democracies? * As much as you might want to belittle him now, you have no idea how it will play out. Remember, Lincoln was despised by many in the Union and if Atlanta had not fallen, there was a very real chance he would have lost reelection.
> 
> And, given that you were talking about Bush causing a recession, and I clearly said the recession of the early 2000's and you were trying to say that it didn't start until 2007, I think it is a pretty safe bet that you either had forgotten about the recession that Clinton left or didn't know about it.
> 
> But the main point is that hypotheticals are pretty useless.


ROTFLMAO. Come on. We're seven years gone from Dubya and it ain't looking good. Not even close. Ah, but for the good old days of widespread democracy in the Middle East, where elections were honest and all nations were at peace and Skittles fell from the sky and... Wait a minute.

Yes, I remember the recession of the early 2000's but that was somewhat of a blip, I think. Should we talk about the economy in the early Reagan years? I'd trade a few months of recession in 2001 for the recession of 2007-08 in a heartbeat. Anyone would.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> ROTFLMAO. Come on. We're seven years gone from Dubya and it ain't looking good. Not even close. Ah, but for the good old days of widespread democracy in the Middle East, where elections were honest and all nations were at peace and Skittles fell from the sky and... Wait a minute.
> 
> Yes, I remember the recession of the early 2000's but that was somewhat of a blip, I think. Should we talk about the economy in the early Reagan years? I'd trade a few months of recession in 2001 for the recession of 2007-08 in a heartbeat. Anyone would.


Ah yes, the American attention span. How long did the Cold War last? How about WW2 if you include Manchuria? Or the proxy wars in Spain and Africa?

And what specific policies did Bush put in place that led to the 2007 recession? If you are going to blame things on him, you should at least be able to call them out by name....

And make sure you let me know how the opposition party reacted when he tried to reform Fannie and Freddie. I can't wait to see how you blame that on him.

The point still stands that hypotheticals stink.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Dubya also caused childhood obesity, cancer and the heartbreak of psoriasis. You can look it up.



vpkozel said:


> Ah yes, the American attention span. How long did the Cold War last? How about WW2 if you include Manchuria? Or the proxy wars in Spain and Africa?
> 
> And what specific policies did Bush put in place that led to the 2007 recession? If you are going to blame things on him, you should at least be able to call them out by name....
> 
> ...


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Dubya also caused childhood obesity, cancer and the heartbreak of psoriasis. You can look it up.


And New Coke. Don't forget about that.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> And New Coke. Don't forget about that.


The McDLT would still be here if it wasn't for Dubya. That was his worst sin. Freaking scumbag. Hypothetical that.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> The McDLT would still be here if it wasn't for Dubya. That was his worst sin. Freaking scumbag. Hypothetical that.


The McDLT was horrendous. I mean like Howard Dean war cry horrendous.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

I blame GWB for ensuring that the McRib appears only sporadically on the McDonalds menu.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> I don't think it's fair for you or anyone to say Obama--or any other president--screwed this up or that up or the other thing up without offering here's-what-he-should-have-done-instead, particularly when we are talking about issues unfolding as we speak. That, in my opinion, is weak sauce. *If you want to criticize Obama for the way he played the hand that he was dealt, fine, but tell me how you would have played that hand differently*.


I didn't run for office and I'm not the POTUS. I don't have access to the information he has so how I would have played anything is irrelevant.

By the way, it's not as though he drew the short straw and became President. He asked for it. It's hardly accurate to say that it was "the hand he was dealt".


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> The McDLT was horrendous. I mean like Howard Dean war cry horrendous.


Horrendous? Goes to show what you know. The McDLT was the pinnacle of American fast food, as brilliantly conceived as it was packaged. It was like spindling a Whopper and telling Burger King to stick it in the chocolate shake machine. What I would give for a McDLT right now...


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

MaxBuck said:


> I blame GWB for ensuring that the McRib appears only sporadically on the McDonalds menu.


Talk about hypotheticals. Ain't nothing ribby at all about that abomination.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

MaxBuck said:


> I blame GWB for ensuring that the McRib appears only sporadically on the McDonalds menu.


Excellent point, and fabulous sandwich. My sources say Dubya had unlimited access at the White House. He didn't want the 99 percent to have it upon demand just because he did.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> I didn't run for office and I'm not the POTUS. I don't have access to the information he has so how I would have played anything is irrelevant.
> 
> By the way, it's not as though he drew the short straw and became President. He asked for it. It's hardly accurate to say that it was "the hand he was dealt".


Ah, so you think that it's OK to whine and moan and criticize without offering any constructive alternatives. Nice.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Horrendous? Goes to show what you know. The McDLT was the pinnacle of American fast food, as brilliantly conceived as it was packaged. It was like spindling a Whopper and telling Burger King to stick it in the chocolate shake machine. What I would give for a McDLT right now...


First of all, I know that you are a Yankee and thus deprived of the wonder that is Chik Fil A, but if you disrespect it again by not giving it its proper place in the throne of thrones, we are gonna have some issues, lol.

And Wendy's is way better than a McDLTs.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> First of all, I know that you are a Yankee and thus deprived of the wonder that is Chik Fil A, but if you disrespect it again by not giving it its proper place in the throne of thrones, we are gonna have some issues, lol.
> 
> And Wendy's is way better than a McDLTs.


Let's get this straight. I am Canadian with a green card--I only vote in parliamentary elections. Not a Yankee, eh. I have sampled the Chik Fil A just once and was impressed. But not as impressed as with a proper Filet O Fish. As for Wendy's, you are correct: It's a better restaurant these days than McDonalds. But back in the day...


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Let's get this straight. I am Canadian with a green card--I only vote in parliamentary elections. Not a Yankee, eh. I have sampled the Chik Fil A just once and was impressed. But not as impressed as with a proper Filet O Fish. As for Wendy's, you are correct: It's a better restaurant these days than McDonalds. But back in the day...


I call BS. You are way too rude to be Canadian. But that would explain why you are a socialist


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Ah, so you think that it's OK to whine and moan and criticize without offering any constructive alternatives. Nice.


What conservative alternative? Why do you try to box foreign policy decisions into a liberal/conservative box.

International affairs exist and operate according to a different calculus than domestic politics. To think otherwise is to court disaster. That would be like saying that their is a liberal and a conservative way to perform an ACL reconstruction.

As for offering a solution, I don't have the necessary facts in front of me to do so. To go on otherwise would be the equivalent of spewing barroom wisdom at 1am.

I can, however, observe the results of this efforts and judge him on the outcomes.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Well, i never tried to secede from my country. And I don't speak French, either.



vpkozel said:


> I call BS. You are way too rude to be Canadian. But that would explain why you are a socialist


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Put the single malt down. I never said conservative. I said constructive. I don't give a hoot about labels--those are constructs. You blast Obama for what he did and is doing, then say "i don't have sufficient facts upon which to make any judgment."

Really? How convenient.



SG_67 said:


> What conservative alternative? Why do you try to box foreign policy decisions into a liberal/conservative box.
> 
> International affairs exist and operate according to a different calculus than domestic politics. To think otherwise is to court disaster. That would be like saying that their is a liberal and a conservative way to perform an ACL reconstruction.
> 
> ...


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Put the single malt down. I never said conservative. I said constructive. I don't give a hoot about labels--those are constructs. You blast Obama for what he did and is doing, then say "i don't have sufficient facts upon which to make any judgment."
> 
> Really? How convenient.


You're right...constructive!

It's been a long day. The single malt is waiting.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

On this we can both agree. Cheers.



SG_67 said:


> You're right...constructive!
> 
> It's been a long day. The single malt is waiting.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Put the single malt down. I never said conservative. I said constructive. I don't give a hoot about labels--those are constructs. You blast Obama for what he did and is doing, then say "i don't have sufficient facts upon which to make any judgment."
> 
> Really? How convenient.


I don't have sufficient facts or information to offer what I would do alternatively. I can only judge his performance on the results, and the results have been far from good.

I go to a fine restaurant and order a meal. I eat the meal and am displeased with it's flavor. I don't have to know how to cook to know when I don't like the way the food tastes.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*A piece in the Charlotte Observer on why that paper supports a liberal agenda.*

I think this editorial, written by Taylor Batten, provides a good representation of the ideals most liberal/progressive individual hold.

"I wrote a light blogpost last month about Mayor Dan Clodfelter proclaiming April 30 'Honesty Day' in Charlotte. Honesty Day, it turned out, is observed on that date nationwide.
I noted a Wikipedia explanation of what it's all about: 'On this day, anyone participating may ask any question they choose and the opposing person should give a truthful and straightforward answer.'
I invited readers to say what they would ask, and of whom.
David Fry of Charlotte was among those who responded.
"To: observer editors
"Question? Why do you support such a liberal agenda?
"Remember you're supposed to answer honestly."
Well, rules are rules, so I suppose you deserve an honest answer for Honesty Day. Here goes:
We believe that everyone is created equal.
We believe that children should not bear responsibility for the sins of their parents.
We believe that prevention is a heck of a lot cheaper than a cure.
We believe people should not be treated as lesser citizens, with fewer rights, because of whom they love.
We believe a thriving city, state and nation rests to a great degree in the quality of its public schools, and that every child deserves a dedicated, dynamic teacher, regardless of what ZIP code that child lives in.
We believe discrimination is wrong in every instance.
We believe in consistency, so if you are going to drug-test recipients of public assistance, drug-test them all, including the corporate chieftains who are the biggest beneficiaries.
We believe that police officers should act professionally, under incredibly difficult circumstances, regardless of a suspect's race.
We believe taxes should be kept as low as possible while still providing a sound safety net for the neediest, a robust education for all, decent health care for the elderly and the destitute, and other basics.
We believe politicians of any party should keep their promises, avoid the appearance of personal gain from the public trust, and look out for the general welfare, not that of any one special interest.
We believe there are people of worth beyond our tight circle and there are neighborhoods beyond our own, with different histories, perspectives and needs.
We believe offenders have paid their price when their sentence is up and should be helped to assimilate back into society. And that that's better for the community than neglecting them and watching them commit another crime.
We believe there are peace-loving Muslims.
We do not believe President Obama was born in Kenya.
We believe in the separation of church and state.
We believe Moore Place, built with public and private money, and its housing-first approach is a model for how to help the chronically homeless.
We believe Charlotte will need effective mass transit to handle its continually swelling population.
We believe if you're a fan of a politician solely because he has a 'D' or an 'R' after his name, then you're not paying attention.
We believe we have only one planet, and we should protect it for our grandchildren.
If that earns us the label "liberal" in your eyes, Mr. Fry, so be it. We approach the issues of the day with an open mind and guided by those principles, not by blind devotion to any political party. And that's the honest truth.
Email: [email protected]; on Twitter @tbatten1.

TAYLOR BATTEN

Read more here: https://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/taylor-batten/article21108579

Regards, 
Gurdon


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ that's wonderful. The question is how do we get there? Many of those same ideals are held by conservatives as well. 

Also, that's her interpretation and not the way modern liberalism really operates.


At the heart of all of those "we believes" lies the fundamental belief that government, the state, is the vehicle by which those ideals will be realized. Not private citizens working toward their own goals, but everyone working collectively to support a common goal. That goal, and the means to get there, established by an enlightened few for the common good.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> ^ that's wonderful. The question is how do we get there? Many of those same ideals are held by conservatives as well.
> 
> Also, that's her interpretation and not the way modern liberalism really operates.
> 
> At the heart of all of those "we believes" lies the fundamental belief that government, the state, is the vehicle by which those ideals will be realized. Not private citizens working toward their own goals, but everyone working collectively to support a common goal. That goal, and the means to get there, established by an enlightened few for the common good.


How about a middle ground? One in which a limited government recognizes that taxes must be levied to pay for its limited, yet essential services; one in which the primary beneficiaries of government largesse (hint: it's not LaQueesha the single mom and her eight kids, it's guys who populate boardrooms) no longer can suck forever at the public teat; one in which the US taxpayer is no longer called upon to pay for a military with a budget approximately 40% of the *world's total* military expenditures?

And if one takes the position that the typical customer base of Wal-Mart is better equipped to develop geopolitical strategy than graduates of elite universities with specialization in world affairs or related bodies of learning ... I can't agree with that person. So if that makes me an elitist, so be it, I'm an elitist.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

How do you know how modern liberalism operates? It sounds like we're back to smacking pejorative labels on things. And the editorial never once said that the government is the vehicle for realizing the stated ideals. Due respect, but you appear to be putting words in the author's mouth that the author never spoke.



SG_67 said:


> ^ that's wonderful. The question is how do we get there? Many of those same ideals are held by conservatives as well.
> 
> Also, that's her interpretation and not the way modern liberalism really operates.
> 
> At the heart of all of those "we believes" lies the fundamental belief that government, the state, is the vehicle by which those ideals will be realized. Not private citizens working toward their own goals, but everyone working collectively to support a common goal. That goal, and the means to get there, established by an enlightened few for the common good.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

While I highly doubt that this person actually received an email with that question - it is an old journalistic and political trick to say that someone asked you a non-existant question in order to give yourself a platform to espouse something - here is a quick response to some of his tenets.



Gurdon said:


> I think this editorial, written by Taylor Batten, provides a good representation of the ideals most liberal/progressive individual hold.
> 
> "I wrote a light blogpost last month about Mayor Dan Clodfelter proclaiming April 30 'Honesty Day' in Charlotte. Honesty Day, it turned out, is observed on that date nationwide.
> I noted a Wikipedia explanation of what it's all about: 'On this day, anyone participating may ask any question they choose and the opposing person should give a truthful and straightforward answer.'
> ...


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

You are putting words in people's mouths and refusing to agree with anything--anything--the author says. That says more about you than it does about the author. Also, given that the author has provided the name of the person who posed the question, what makes you so sure that the question wasn't asked? Lots and lots and lots of people, including some here on this forum, rail about the liberal media. Why wouldn't the question be genuine?



vpkozel said:


> While I highly doubt that this person actually received an email with that question - it is an old journalistic and political trick to say that someone asked you a non-existant question in order to give yourself a platform to espouse something - here is a quick response to some of his tenets.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> You are putting words in people's mouths and refusing to agree with anything--anything--the author says. That says more about you than it does about the author. Also, given that the author has provided the name of the person who posed the question, what makes you so sure that the question wasn't asked? Lots and lots and lots of people, including some here on this forum, rail about the liberal media. Why wouldn't the question be genuine?


Perhaps you should read it again. I didn't disagree with what he wrote - I asked clarifying questions about what he wrote. That is why I added the question marks. And let's not act like this was the Gettysburg Address. It is basically an unserious collection of bumper sticker slogans.

As for the original premise, I said I highly doubt it, not that it was absolutely untrue. Do you disagree with the premise that folks in the public eye (e.g., journalists, politicians, etc.) use this literary device? The fact that he gave a name doesn't really make it any more or less likely that this happened.

Finally - relax. Please. I obviously did this with tongue firmly planted in cheek.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> Perhaps you should read it again. I didn't disagree with what he wrote - I asked clarifying questions about what he wrote. That is why I added the question marks. And let's not act like this was the Gettysburg Address.* It is basically an unserious collection of bumper sticker slogans*.
> 
> As for the original premise, I said I highly doubt it, not that it was absolutely untrue. Do you disagree with the premise that folks in the public eye (e.g., journalists, politicians, etc.) use this literary device? The fact that he gave a name doesn't really make it any more or less likely that this happened.
> 
> Finally - relax. Please. I obviously did this with tongue firmly planted in cheek.


Just seems that you like to argue and can't tolerate the notion that someone who might not share your conservative views should be allowed to have opinions of their own that might be good ones.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Just seems that you like to argue and can't tolerate the notion that someone who might not share your conservative views should be allowed to have opinions of their own that might be good ones.


I do like to argue. And I am not conservative so much as a constitutional libertarian.

But let's do this. Did you really consider that list a serious collection of principles?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Yes, I did. Why do you consider it laughable?



vpkozel said:


> I do like to argue. And I am not conservative so much as a constitutional libertarian.
> 
> But let's do this. Did you really consider that list a serious collection of principles?


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Yes, I did. Why do you consider it laughable?


I don't think that I used the term laughable.

So, if you think that this is a serious list, please tell me all the items that, in your opinion, Conservatives would disagree with. TIA.


----------

