# A toast to "W" - thank you for keeping us safe



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

This week saw the funeral of an inspirational conservative leader: a steadfast opponent of Bolshevism, a passionate advocate of freedom and the saviour of the British economy. I speak, of course, of the late Lady Thatcher.

We should at this time pause to remember the great conservative leaders who remain with us still. So often those who are on the right were right in the face of incessant cynicism during their periods of office. We should take the opportunity to celebrate those with whom the Lady would have found so much common cause. The names roll of the tongue, in the United States and - regrettably only sometimes - in the United Kingdom.(*)

But - anticipating the many brickbats that will be thrown at me - I wish to salute *President George W. Bush*:

He was resolute in the face of the first act of terrorism involving the use of weapons of mass destruction on US soil (or indeed in any Western democracy). He recognised the existential threat that is posed by Islamic terrorism, and was prepared to take the tough choices to engage with the enemies of freedom "on every battlefront". To his clarity of leadership and his tenacity in going 'on offense' (to adopt the American usage), in my estimation, we in our delicate Western democracies owe much of the security we enjoy today. He was an inspirational American President, and history's judgment will be far kinder than that of the Liberal 'medja'.

And, as a lifelong Conservative, I remember with pride when our Labour Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. Tony Blair, stood shoulder to shoulder with President Bush - and Congress - in the face of the greatest terrorist atrocity of recent history. It was the first occasion on which I was proud of our then Prime Minister. His clarity of vision on the security threat transcended the avatism of 'Party'. From 9/11 onwards he showed he was prepared to lead opinion. From then, and in that, he never wavered.



President George W. Bush said:


> I can hear you, I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people ... and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear ALL of us soon.






 @ 1.53

(*) For example, selecting only a tiny fraction of those for whom I have particular esteem, respectively--


Mr. Henry Kissinger, Mr. Donald Rumsfeld, Vice-President Cheney, Mr. Colin Powell, President George H. W. Bush, Mr. James A. Baker III, Mr. L. Paul Bremer III, Mr. Paul Wolfowitz, Dr. Condoleezza Rice,(*) &c.; 


Lord Lawson, Lord Howard of Lypmne, the 7th Marquis of Salisbury, Lord Tebbit, the Rt. Hon. William Hague, M.P., &c. (and sadly not still with us, the late Rt. Hon. the Lord Kingsland, Q.C.). 

(*) Thank you, blue suede shoes.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Give. Me. Strength.

This is a roll-call of some of the worst individuals ever to wield political power.

One example - Colin Powell, instrumental in the attempted cover up of the My Lai massacre. Need I go on?

Please tell me that this is an extremely deadpan piece of satire. :tongue2:

,.
.
.
.
.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Shaver:

This thread is not meant for bottom feeders or Cryptos! Be ye gone!

I am deadly serious.

Do ya miss me yet?






B.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Balfour said:


> Shaver:
> 
> This thread is not meant for bottom feeders or Cryptos! Be ye gone!
> 
> ...


Oh. I see. Well in which case please do forgive my intrusion.

All the transparent apex predators may continue their worship of a man who appears to have a lesser IQ than a domestic pet without any further interference from me.

.
.
.
.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Before this turns into a hate-fest, I liked W and I thought that, given the hand he was dealt, he did what America wanted the heat of the moment. While long-term, a lot of people soured on his actions, I don't recall any of my Bush-hating friends, peers, or acquaintances crying foul in 2002.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

I like 'W' but policy wise he was Clinton light and proved no match for the hate filled throngs aka media types.


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

Balfour, I must agree with your post, which I most certainly appreciate. However, Colin Powell does not belong in your list of esteemed public servants as he was a traitor. His name should be replaced with another great public servant, Dr. Condoleezza Rice.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

blue suede shoes said:


> *another great public servant, Dr. Condoleezza Rice.*


:thumbs-up:


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Balfour said:


> To his clarity of leadership and his tenacity in going 'on offense' (to adopt the American usage), in my estimation, we in our delicate Western democracies owe much of the security we enjoy today.


No brickbats, just an expression of a difference of opinion.
He started a war in Iraq, because he wanted to. There was no connection between the events of 9/11 and Iraq, indeed Saddam Hussein was opposed to Al Qaeda as the West is. He got the US embroiled in a war they can't win in Afghanistan. These foreign adventures have cost the US taxpayer how much? And to what extent have they made the West safer?



Balfour said:


> And, as a lifelong Conservative, I remember with pride when our Labour Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. Tony Blair, stood shoulder to shoulder with President Bush - and Congress - in the face of the greatest terrorist atrocity of recent history.


Announcing proudly that you're a lifelong Tory rather suggests that your approach to politics is dogmatic rather than reasoned, which would explain your hostility to interpretations that differ to yours. Faith needs no rationality or proof, or indeed, evidence.

Tony Blair was, of course, a Thatcherite conservative who used the concept of "New Labour" to gain personal power, who engaged us in wars that we didn't need and couldn't win and which we couldn't afford either.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

I too am a lifelong Conservative, but never warmed much to Tony Blair, nor have I perceived the necessity for UK foreign policy to become so closely aligned with that of the USA. Iraq and the world may be better without Saddam Hussein, as Afghanistan is better without the Taliban, but these costly engagements have proved very circuitous and rather counter-productive ways of dealing with the al-Qaida threat. Our continued presence in Afghanistan is not worth the death of one more British or US serviceman. Future wars of this type, I predict, will be fought using targetted attacks by cruise missiles and missile-firing drones, with not more than a company or so of the SAS on the ground.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Announcing proudly that you're a lifelong Tory rather suggests that your approach to politics is dogmatic rather than reasoned, which would explain your hostility to interpretations that differ to yours.





Chouan said:


> ...Curious isn't it, as I think I've mentioned before, that the pro-Thatcher people seem to be so much more inclined to attack the individuals who are seen as anti-Thatcher, than their arguments.












I thought high-minded Cryptos like you didn't play the man? Ah, of course, I forgot: it's okay to be a hypocrite if it advances the Leftist cause. Anyway, read post #3.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

blue suede shoes said:


> Balfour, I must agree with your post, which I most certainly appreciate. However, Colin Powell does not belong in your list of esteemed public servants as he was a traitor. His name should be replaced with another great public servant, Dr. Condoleezza Rice.


Thank you. Dr. Rice goes on the list.

Do you not think Mr. Powell deserves to stay due to his tenure as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs? I realise opinion will divide on his tenure as Secretary of State.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Langham said:


> I too am a lifelong Conservative, but never warmed much to Tony Blair, nor have I perceived the necessity for UK foreign policy to become so closely aligned with that of the USA. Iraq and the world may be better without Saddam Hussein, as Afghanistan is better without the Taliban, but these costly engagements have proved very circuitous and rather counter-productive ways of dealing with the al-Qaida threat. Our continued presence in Afghanistan is not worth the death of one more British or US serviceman. Future wars of this type, I predict, will be fought using targetted attacks by cruise missiles and missile-firing drones, with not more than a company or so of the SAS on the ground.


I realise opinion will divide on Iraq, but the Afghanistan war seemed compelling from a security perspective.

Lobbing a few cruise missiles in was the Clinton Administration response to security crises, and in his period of office my sense is foreign powers lost most of their respect for US foreign policy. At least President Obama was prepared to order the Seal mission against Bin Laden.

But let us all take this opportunity to remember the sacrifice and service of the soldiers killed and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. Freedom isn't free.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Balfour said:


> ...
> But let us all take this opportunity to remember the sacrifice and service of the soldiers killed and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. Freedom isn't free.


I agree with you very much - this country's long history of military engagements overseas in order to introduce and defend liberal western values is insufficiently recognised. Is it ever imparted in our schools?

In the case of Afghanistan, however, I feel that country will very rapidly revert to tribal chaos and brutality the moment we leave (as we soon will), and all the sacrifice that has been made in the name of advancing democracy and freedom there will have been wasted.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

President George W Bush is not the greatest travesty to occupy the White House in the past dozen years. He is essentially a good man, who has been trashed by an out of control, left wing media. LOL. Curse me if you must, but I am also a confirmed fan of Collin Powell and Condoleeza Rice...all great Americans! God bless America and please save us from the policies of the current misguided occupant of the White House. Amen.

PS: Or should that have been a hearty, "Hear, hear?"


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Balfour said:


> Lobbing a few cruise missiles in was the Clinton Administration response to security crises, and in his period of office my sense is foreign powers lost most of their respect for US foreign policy.


I am at a loss to address the complete imbecility of this statement, in a thread devoted to the boy president that turned the image of the United States from beloved leader of nations to dangerous arrogant hotheads in very short order.



eagle2250 said:


> President George W Bush is not the greatest travesty to occupy the White House in the past dozen years.


Because his successor foolishly continued and extended his wrongheaded policies? Bush Jr. was easily the biggest disaster we'd seen in well over a decade.

Furthermore, the scoundrels of the Bush regime were NOT conservative. They were that bastard group known as neo-conservatives, a name that reveals the impure compromised nature of their thinking. They bear only the faintest resemblance to any conservative ideal.

Bush took charge of a prosperous peacetime and turned it into a war-torn depression. What exactly is it that he conserved?

Condoleeza Rice was a great expert on the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union hasn't existed since I was in high school. Her mark in history will be that wonderful clip of her reading the title of the Presidential 
Daily Brief for August 6th, 2001, "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US."

This thread is an attempt at historical revisionism. We were alive through these awful messes. We remember. The entire Bush presidency warrants praise for exactly two things: letting the 'assault weapons' ban lapse, and being staunch on protecting the unborn. Everything else was a miserable failure and saying otherwise will not change the facts.


----------



## Reldresal (Oct 13, 2011)

This is a joke, right? W. was a disaster. 

I remember when we were gearing up for war and I saw Robin Cook's resignation speech in Parliament. Never had I wished a foreign politician was our own more than then. I hoped we too would have our own Cook. Nope.

Powell? Kissinger? Bush? Any more war criminals you like? Wow.


----------



## DJH_of_Doom (Apr 3, 2013)

Langham said:


> In the case of Afghanistan, however, I feel that country will very rapidly revert to tribal chaos and brutality the moment we leave (as we soon will), and all the sacrifice that has been made in the name of advancing democracy and freedom there will have been wasted.


In which case, perhaps it would have been prudent to not to attempt to force cultural values onto a society that didn't want it.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Tempest said:


> I am at a loss to address the complete imbecility of this statement, in a thread devoted to the boy president that turned the image of the United States from beloved leader of nations to dangerous arrogant hotheads in very short order.
> 
> Because his successor foolishly continued and extended his wrongheaded policies? Bush Jr. was easily the biggest disaster we'd seen in well over a decade.
> 
> ...


 LOL In 2004, when unemployment "unexpectedly" went down to 5.4%, then State Senator and US Senate candidate Barack Obama delivered a radio address slamming George W. Bush for "three dismal years of job loss." He wondered how people would retire with dignity. Today, people are dropping out of the work force in despair, which is the only reason the official unemployment rate isn't at 11%. Even with the government fudging the numbers, it's still over 8%. 


> Condoleeza Rice was a great expert on the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union hasn't existed since I was in high school. Her mark in history will be that wonderful clip of her reading the title of the Presidential
> Daily Brief for August 6th, 2001, "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US."
> 
> This thread is an attempt at historical revisionism. We were alive through these awful messes. We remember. The entire Bush presidency warrants praise for exactly two things: letting the 'assault weapons' ban lapse, and being staunch on protecting the unborn. Everything else was a miserable failure and saying otherwise will not change the facts.


See facts above

https://lonelyconservative.com/2012/02/in-2004-obama-slammed-bush-over-economy-unemployment-was-5-4/


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Balfour said:


> This week saw the funeral of an inspirational conservative leader: a steadfast opponent of Bolshevism, a passionate advocate of freedom and the saviour of the British economy. I speak, of course, of the late Lady Thatcher.
> 
> He was resolute in the face of the first act of terrorism involving the use of weapons of mass destruction on US soil (or indeed in any Western democracy). He recognised the existential threat that is posed by Islamic terrorism, and *was prepared to take the tough choices to engage with the enemies of freedom "on every battlefront". *To his clarity of leadership and his tenacity in going 'on offense' (to adopt the American usage), in my estimation, we in our delicate Western democracies owe much of the security we enjoy today. He was an inspirational American President, and history's judgment will be far kinder than that of the Liberal 'medja'.


True heros for the times...Torturers, kidnappers, breakers of international law, war criminals, destroyers of civil liberties, etc...

The main enemy of freedom for American's themselves came from Mr. Bush and all the bills/laws/agencies he quickly created in the emotion/commotion of the moment.

I only hope that when your enemies find you, that they are not so narrow minded and intent on their purpose as the people you hold in such high esteem.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

justonemore said:


> True heros for the times...Torturers, kidnappers, breakers of international law, war criminals, destroyers of civil liberties, etc...
> 
> The main enemy of freedom for American's themselves came from Mr. Bush and all the bills/laws/agencies he quickly created in the emotion/commotion of the moment.
> 
> I only hope that when your enemies find you, that they are not so narrow minded and intent on their purpose as the people you hold in such high esteem.


 LMAO.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

DJH_of_Doom said:


> In which case, perhaps it would have been prudent to not to attempt to force cultural values onto a society that didn't want it.


The more liberal, democratically oriented sections within Afghan society, and most women at nearly all levels, must have welcomed the fall of the Taliban. My quibble was not with the attempt to bring that about, but with the means used to achieve that aim, given that the emergence from anarchy is likely to prove short-lived.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

G.W. Bush wasn't elected President in 2000; Al Gore was. The Miami Herald statewide count of "Undervotes" and "Overvotes" proved Gore won by 662 votes. It was the conservatives on the Supreme Court who stopped the Florida vote recount, and then Florida's secretary of state, also a conservative; Katherine Harris who declared Bush the winner without doing a recount; that made Bush President. G.W. Bush is an ignorant rich kid who has coasted through life on his father's oil money. Bush avoided service in the Vietnam War by getting preferential treatment and getting a slot in the Air National Guard. Then Bush, as President, didn't send enough troops to Afghanistan which allowed Osama bin Laden to escape from the Tora Bora Valley. We could have captured bin Laden in 2001 had it not been for Bush's incompetence. The Afghans - particularly the women - were so glad to see the Taliban run out of the country.
The domestic economy performed poorly during Bush's time in office and ended disastrously with the sub-prime mortgage meltdown which nearly caused the second Great Depression - the effects of which we are still dealing with. While I support the Iraq War; yes Saddam Hussein didn't have any weapons of mass destruction but he was trying to get them; Bush didn't have a plan for the peace, and so the country dissolved into civil war which was finally stopped by the troop surge. I support the objective of trying to create a democracy in Iraq where none had ever existed before, but it certainly could have been handled much better. Paul Bremer was that idiot who disbanded the Iraqi Army thus making thousands of young men who were trained in the arts of war available to local religious and tribal leaders who formed them into militias and engaged in attacks all over Iraq which nearly destroyed the country and troubles it still.

"[G]reat conservative leaders?" There have never been any great conservative leaders - not even Ronald Reagan. Franklin Delano Roosevelt - a 4-term liberal democrat - was the greatest president the U.S. ever had. He led the country through the Great Depression and nearly through World War II - the biggest war this country has ever had, and no conservative can even come close to claiming as much.

P.S. Great conservative leaders - who? - Pol Pot?


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

Balfour said:


> Mr. Henry Kissinger, Mr. Donald Rumsfeld, Vice-President Cheney, Mr. Colin Powell, President George H. W. Bush, Mr. James A. Baker III, Mr. L. Paul Bremer III, Mr. Paul Wolfowitz, Dr. Condoleezza Rice,(*) &c.


Some brief notes:

*GWB:* Likeable and decent guy, unlike the current president. Like the current president, in over his head, but GWB tried his best and, unlike the current president, kept us safe after 9/11. IMO, of the father and son, *GHWB* was the better man and president.

*Rumsfeld:* In spite of myself, I love the guy. Very likeable guy, in the tradition of your crazy uncle...The "You have your known knowns, unknown knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns" quote is classic in its crazy twisted clarity. His philosophy of building a lighter high-tech military was flawed in my opinion, but Rummy was sincere in his belief that this was the way to go.

*Cheney:* Serious man, but he lost me when he said deficits don't matter.

*JAB III: *Great statesman and another serious fellow. I think he was losing it a bit by the time he was assisting GWB.

*Wolfowitz:* Dangerous naive neocon. Too much certainty...not enough introspection. Put John Bolton, GWB's UN Ambassador, in the same camp. I still cannot believe that a policy of "Preemptive self-defense" was serious justification to invade Iraq.

*Rice: *Ultimate team player. So much so, that, unfortuntely, I never trusted her to tell the truth.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

The thing that I find quite humourous about this thread is how those of a conservative slant berate the incumbent President for being weak and for being over his head. No matter how politically experienced, any first term President will find themselves over their heads. It's how they deal with it that matters. I also find it funny how he's berated for being some sort Maoist dictator hell-bent on destroying of what a small number of rich white people deem 'The American Way Of Life". 

In the same vein, some of you fine fellows found it astounding that a number of members this side of the pond were deeply critical of Margaret Thatcher following her passing. 

I appreciate the irony here. A European telling you you're all nuts! But from this Irishman's perspective, Barack Obama has been the most maligned, racially abused and disrespected president - short of Dubya (yes, he was deeply disrespected) - that I know of.... He was elected at an impossible time and inherited an asylum full to the brim of bat-crap crazy problems. And are somehow now his fault!

How exactly has he not protected America? What do you expect a man in that position to do? Like when a middle class white kid shoots and kills a bunch of school kids, or when two Muslim chaps set off a couple of IEDs - there's nothing anyone can do to prevent that. I know. Some of my fellow friends from the UK know, when you have someone who really wants to blow something up or shoot someone, there's little or stopping them.

I wish, I really wish there was honesty when it comes to Barak Obama - especially with some of you here. God could split the skies and announce him as the second coming, but most of you would still hate him.

Admit it. 

It is because he's black, isn't it?

But you won't - because then that would force a completely different argument and one that you could never, ever win.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

VictorRomeo said:


> ...
> I wish, I really wish there was honesty when it comes to Barak Obama - especially with some of you here. God could split the skies and announce him as the second coming, but most of you would still hate him.
> 
> Admit it.
> ...


I don't think this was pointed at me, as I haven't criticised President Obama (indeed I acknowledged his guts in authorising the Seal mission). I don't claim to know as much about his period of office as US history from 1976 to 2008. But he seems to compare favourably to the last Democratic incumbent (in terms of the quality of his character) and the second-from-last Democratic incumbent (in terms of his executive competence).

But I am sure that the President would not want apologists like you: he occupies the highest office in the United States, and is the most powerful man in the world. He would not expect criticism of his policies to be off limits because he is black. I'm not saying that sentiment doesn't exist in certain quarters (and it is utterly contemptible). But it is unworthy to tar any critic with the slur of racism: you're better than that, as demonstrated by your other more thoughtful posts (which I would acknowledge as such, even though we disagree profoundly).


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

In the extremely-unlikely event that you are interested in my views, W was certainly the worst multi-term president in American history and is a solid contender for worst overall. Even when he was working with the opposition, as with education reform, the cure was often worse than the disease. As for the things he did acceptably on, ANY person who might possibly have been elected president would have done the same or better. At least that's my read. I have little interest in re-debating all the things I argued about from 2000-2008, but thought I would provide a (slightly left-leaning moderate) American perspective.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

VictorRomeo said:


> I wish, I really wish there was honesty when it comes to Barak Obama - especially with some of you here. God could split the skies and announce him as the second coming, but most of you would still hate him.
> 
> Admit it.
> 
> ...


The claim that critics of Obama are just racists is the lowest form of slur, revealing the depravity of the claimant. There are many reasons we conservatives are critical of our President, but we actually are quite tame given his divine status to which you refer:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012...savior-furor-soul-train-awards_n_2199439.html

https://weeklyworldnews.com/headlines/51076/michelle-obama-barack-is-the-messiah/

https://www.google.com/search?q=bar...DM7Tq2wXxi4HQCg&ved=0CDwQsAQ&biw=1920&bih=875

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgur...VR1UYTVC6Tr2wWxvoCoAQ&ved=0CDkQ9QEwAw&dur=216


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> In the extremely-unlikely event that you are interested in my views, W was certainly the worst multi-term president in American history and is a solid contender for worst overall. Even when he was working with the opposition, as with education reform, the cure was often worse than the disease. As for the things he did acceptably on, ANY person who might possibly have been elected president would have done the same or better. At least that's my read. I have little interest in re-debating all the things I argued about from 2000-2008, but thought I would provide a (slightly left-leaning moderate) American perspective.


Nope - post #3 does not apply to you, Cuff, I always enjoy reading your posts. And I'm conscious that my standing on this topic is limited.

But - for what little it may be worth in your eyes - I think a 'President' Gore would have responded with hand-wringing wonkish indecision to 9/11. Whatever may be said of President Bush, he had the courage of his convictions.

I also fully understand the desire not to re-debate all the issues: a toast does not need to be that, but can simply be an opportunity for those of us who esteem a political leader to celebrate his contribution. (Hence my suggestion to the usual suspects in #3!)


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Balfour said:


> But - for what little it may be worth in your eyes - I think a 'President' Gore would have responded with hand-wringing wonkish indecision to 9/11.


And I think it is absurd to think so. Every single person in the political mainstream in America was in favor of a vigorous, violent response to 9/11 as soon as we could identify the culprit/source/sponsor. There was never any doubt that Afghanistan was going to get pounded once the AQ and Taliban connection were made.

But we're both conjecturing about alternative histories.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

VictorRomeo said:


> How exactly has he not protected America?


Benghazi. On 9/11 no less.

Fast and Furious. Yeah, let's give automatic weapons to Mexican drug lords and see what happens. What could go wrong?


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

Mike Petrik said:


> The claim that critics of Obama are just racists is the lowest form of slur, revealing the depravity of the claimant.


...or his/her inability to counter with a cogent argument.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

I think there are many (most) critics of Obama who are not remotely racist. I think there are some who are. I think a subset of the former uses dog-whistle codewords to inflame the latter. I don't know how any of the foregoing can be seriously disputed.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> And I think it is absurd to think so. Every single person in the political mainstream in America was in favor of a vigorous, violent response to 9/11 as soon as we could identify the culprit/source/sponsor. There was never any doubt that Afghanistan was going to get pounded once the AQ and Taliban connection were made.
> 
> But we're both conjecturing about alternative histories.


First point granted, but would he have stayed the course and would he have pursued the national security agenda with such vigour and clear-sightedness more generally? (Cf. Mogadishu, 1993.)

Second point, very much agree.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

"would he have stayed the course and would he have pursued the national security agenda with such vigour and clear-sightedness more generally?"

Well, there's our disagreement. I don't think W evinced much "clear-sightedness." He did OK for the first 120 days or so post-9/11, but then launched that disastrous adventure in Iraq. That cost America so much time and treasure (and, later, unity) that I suspect it marks the begining of the end of our hegemony. When I think about the benefits that might have been reaped by investing/using the trillions of dollars spent in/on Iraq in America... well, I think the economy might be a bit better off. And our faux-crisis of debt would be mitigated or non-existent. In my mind, W cost us the American "empire." Our "empire" was an empire of thought and commerce, not territory. He misunderstood that, and in trying to transform it into a geographic empire (all well-intentioned in his simple-minded way), he cost us dearly. We will see if America can recover.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

^ The structural realignment of the global economy, and the rise of China, are I think what threaten American hegemony. Not the $$$ spent re. Iraq.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Balfour said:


> ...I think a 'President' Gore would have responded with hand-wringing wonkish indecision to 9/11. Whatever may be said of President Bush, he had the courage of his convictions.


Courage? Bush was a coward who used his father's connections to get into the Air National Guard thereby avoiding being sent to Vietnam. Convictions? Bush was convinced that he didn't want to be in Vietnam where he could get shot at. Al Gore volunteered for the Army. How could he not? Tennessee is called the Volunteer State. There's an extremely important difference between Bush and Gore - something that Bush supporters conveniently overlook: Bush didn't go to Vietnam. Al Gore did. Gore was in-country where he could have been shot at; planted bombs could have killed him etc. "Wonkish indecision?" From Wikipedia: "...it struck me [Gore] that opponents to the war, including myself, really did not take into account the fact that there were an awful lot of South Vietnamese who desperately wanted to hang on to what they called freedom.'" Gore was THERE. He heard the voices of the common people who didn't want to be taken over by the communists. Bush didn't. Bush didn't care what the common people thought. Al Gore was born in 1948, and he grew up around plenty of WWII vets, and from listening to them he knew that there were times when going to war was the only correct response to a provocation, and 9/11 was just such a provocation.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

VictorRomeo said:


> I wish, I really wish there was honesty when it comes to Barak Obama - especially with some of you here. God could split the skies and announce him as the second coming, but most of you would still hate him.
> 
> Admit it.
> 
> ...


I think racism in a lot of America is perceived by outsiders to be much worse than it is, mainly due to sensationalism in the media. Blacks comprise only about 12% of America AND had a lower voter turnout rate than whites, who comprise about 72% of the population. Obama won with around 53% of the vote in 2008; you do the math. As someone with a minority significant other, in a highly ethnic office, whose job is focused on social services for undocumented latino children, I can assure you that my dislike of Obama stems from policy and not race or Glenn Beck-esque, irrelevant conspiracy theories regarding religion.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Regillus said:


> Courage?


Given your previous post, I understand your comprehension failure.:devil:

[Response to Regillus's original, one-word post (as quoted), subsequently edited after my response.

Al Gore: Are you cereal?]


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

VictorRomeo said:


> The thing that I find quite humourous about this thread is how those of a conservative slant berate the incumbent President for being weak and for being over his head. No matter how politically experienced, any first term President will find themselves over their heads. It's how they deal with it that matters. I also find it funny how he's berated for being some sort Maoist dictator hell-bent on destroying of what a small number of rich white people deem 'The American Way Of Life".
> 
> In the same vein, some of you fine fellows found it astounding that a number of members this side of the pond were deeply critical of Margaret Thatcher following her passing.
> 
> ...


The man's race has nothing to do with anything. However, the man's politics have everything to do with it! He was handed a difficult hand of cards by anyone's definition of same, but he wanted the job so badly, he made a lot of allegations against his predecessor and against his opponents for the Office and he made a raft of promised enhancements that never happened. If you are a socialist, President Obama has done a great job of moving this once great nation of ours in that direction. It seems more of us than not are on the public dole these days. Well, junior, some of us are not socialists and some of us would like to see our children and grandchildren grow up to enjoy the same level of opportunity that we did. Not sure that's in the cards any more. Thank-you President Obama and that worthless group of jackasses and scoundrels we seem to have elected to Congress.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

eagle2250 said:


> ...It seems more of us than not are on the public dole these days. Well, junior, some of us are not socialists....


And how many tax credits do you check off on your 1040? Any at all? Then you're receiving gov't assistance. Are you so rich that you don't need gov't assistance? Then what are you taking it for?


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

Regillus said:


> And how many tax credits do you check off on your 1040? Any at all? Then you're receiving gov't assistance. Are you so rich that you don't need gov't assistance? Then what are you taking it for?


What are you arguing here? That we should be grateful that the gov't allows us to keep more of our own hard-earned money? That we should be ashamed to want to keep more of our own money to allocate as we see fit?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Regillus said:


> And how many tax credits do you check off on your 1040? Any at all? Then you're receiving gov't assistance. Are you so rich that you don't need gov't assistance? Then what are you taking it for?


Tax credits are not the same as tax expenditures, Regillus. And even the tax expenditure concept cannot be reduced to "gov't assistance." Your post betrays an embarrassingly cartoonish understanding of taxes.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Say marginal income tax is 35% (to choose a hypothetical number). Is it 'Government assistance' not to nick the remaining 65%?:crazy:


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Mike Petrik said:


> Tax credits are not the same as tax expenditures, Regillus. And even the tax expenditure concept cannot be reduced to "gov't assistance." Your post betrays an embarrassingly cartoonish understanding of taxes.


A tax credit is the same thing as a check from the gov't. Tax credits are a gov't subsidy for some particular purpose like the mortgage interest deduction is supposed to help people buy a house.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> What are you arguing here? That we should be grateful that the gov't allows us to keep more of our own hard-earned money? That we should be ashamed to want to keep more of our own money to allocate as we see fit?


What I'm arguing is that those who complain about the poor receiving gov't assistance are often receiving gov't assistance in the form of tax credits themselves. For example the mortgage interest deduction.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Why is there no popcorn-eating emoticon?


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Balfour said:


> Say marginal income tax is 35% (to choose a hypothetical number). Is it 'Government assistance' not to nick the remaining 65%?:crazy:


The reason I'm not going to answer this is because it gets into a very complicated subject that's heavy on the math and if I did it everybody's eyes would glaze over and they'd fall asleep.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Regillus said:


> The reason I'm not going to answer this is because it gets into a very complicated subject that's heavy on the math and if I did it everybody's eyes would glaze over and they'd fall asleep.


Hmmm, we need a horse manure emoticon at this stage.

It is this simple. Taking money away from people through tax is not the same as giving it out through entitlement programmes. It's that simple. No complex math(s).

You betray your sympathies by equating the two. Tax relief is not government support, it is not taking away the money people have.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Do you honestly believe that the president of the US is the most powerful man in the world? :confused2:


Shaver. #3 is still in force in respect you - observe or ship your ass to Gitmo.

And, yes, although it is more debatable than ten years ago. World Apology Tour? WTF.

BTW, given what you have quoted, do you agree with VictorRomeo's slur that anyone who has the temerity to criticise President Obama is a racist?


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

I usually don't come this far down the boards, but I saw a funny quote relating to GWB:

"Fat, drunk, & stupid is no way to go through life, son. So he quit drinking and lost weight."

Haven't seen or heard a career politician of any stripe I ever liked, but I know an abject lack of curiosity when I see it. Stupid isn't the right word, but W is better suited to his current endeavors as Texas' premier canine portraitist.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Good God man, will you stop sticking words in my mouth! :icon_smile: Re racism - is Obama black? I can't say I've ever noticed. I've seen caucasian mediterannean fellows who are a much darker shade than him......
> 
> Any hoo - No way is the President the most powerful man in the world - what criteria are you using to measure this alleged power?


Observe post #3. You are not capable of having a sensible conservation within the parameters of the thread, as you acknowledged in your post #4.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

......


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

.....


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

......


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

......


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Deleted our of respect for treaty ....


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

......


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

......


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

.....


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Hitch said:


> Tempest said:
> 
> 
> > Because his successor foolishly continued and extended his wrongheaded policies?
> ...


Your tone implies disagreement but you seem to agree that the failure of Obama was his continuation, even worsening, of his predecessor, which was my point.

This does nothing to dispel the suspicion that most Bush defenders are just kneejerk contrarians.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

......


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

.....


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

......


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Tempest said:


> Your tone implies disagreement but you seem to agree that the failure of Obama was his continuation, even worsening, of his predecessor, which was my point.
> 
> This does nothing to dispel the suspicion that most Bush defenders are just kneejerk contrarians.


I included this part of your quote and addressed it directly;
_
Bush took charge of a prosperous peacetime and turned it into a war-torn depression. What exactly is it that he conserved?

You're not very old still you should know 5.4% unemployment does not a depression make. This rate was pretty much the norm in the golden age you spoke of and through almost all of W's two terms._


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Balfour said:


> People can read the thread to observe your views.
> 
> And I fail to see how quoting the views you are on record as expressing is in anyway rude. Any rudery would be coloured by the expressions you gave voice to, not by my citation of them.:tongue2: Or are you trying to slink away in embarrassment in admitting admiration for a mass murdering terrorist? You should.


 Do you feed feral cats too?


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

......


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Hitch said:


> Do you feed feral cats too?


Hey Hitch! Guess what? I think I can make sense of that post. :redface:

You are calling me a troll right? Ahh the old 'disagrees with me so is a troll' routine. Never gets old does it? :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Regillus said:


> Courage? Bush was a coward who used his father's connections to get into the Air National Guard thereby avoiding being sent to Vietnam. Convictions? Bush was convinced that he didn't want to be in Vietnam where he could get shot at. Al Gore volunteered for the Army. How could he not? Tennessee is called the Volunteer State. There's an extremely important difference between Bush and Gore - something that Bush supporters conveniently overlook: Bush didn't go to Vietnam. Al Gore did. Gore was in-country where he could have been shot at; planted bombs could have killed him etc. "Wonkish indecision?" From Wikipedia: "...it struck me [Gore] that opponents to the war, including myself, really did not take into account the fact that there were an awful lot of South Vietnamese who desperately wanted to hang on to what they called freedom.'" Gore was THERE. He heard the voices of the common people who didn't want to be taken over by the communists. Bush didn't. Bush didn't care what the common people thought. Al Gore was born in 1948, and he grew up around plenty of WWII vets, and from listening to them he knew that there were times when going to war was the only correct response to a provocation, and 9/11 was just such a provocation.


I'm pretty sure your edited post is worse than the original one word post. You're equivocating and, what's more, I think you're missing the whole point. It hardly seems necessary to point out the classic liberal media misdirection move you've just tried to pull.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Balfour said:


> BTW, given what you have quoted, do you agree with VictorRomeo's slur that anyone who has the temerity to criticise President Obama is a racist?


Only Victor Romeo didn't actually say that. He suggested that some opposition was based on race, not all of it.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Balfour said:


> BTW, given what you have quoted, do you agree with VictorRomeo's slur that anyone who has the temerity to criticise President Obama is a racist?


I never said that so don't go all Ally McBeal on me and twist my words to win your case. I've been a busy little bee the past couple of days so will respond further a little later. But to repeat... I did not say that. I'm critical of him too by the way.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Chouan said:


> Only Victor Romeo didn't actually say that. He suggested that some opposition was based on race, not all of it.


Fair point. He said "most" and directed it toward participants on this thread. A mean, stupid, and shallow lie.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Mike Petrik said:


> Fair point. He said "most" and directed it toward participants on this thread. A mean, stupid, and shallow lie.


Read it again. I said "some". Not most. And I stand over that. I believe that some - here despise him because he's a black - or, not white might be a better way to put it. That could mean one or two. But it's not something anyone here would be willing to admit. Hence my desire for more honesty in the discussion when it comes to Obama. If that makes me an 'apologist', well so be it (funny how terms like apologist is viewed pejoratively).


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

VictorRomeo said:


> Read it again. I said "some". Not most.


It's not exactly clear.



VictorRomeo said:


> I wish, I really wish there was honesty when it comes to Barak Obama - especially with some of you here. God could split the skies and announce him as the second coming, but most of you would still hate him.
> 
> Admit it.
> 
> It is because he's black, isn't it?


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Fair enough. I mean some not most. I'll fix.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

There is a post in this thread that seems to me to be a clear (albeit mealy-mouthed) racially prejudiced comment against the President and First Lady:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...me-to-point-this-out-but&highlight=rude+point

I will refrain from identifying exactly which post but I feel certain that anyone who takes the trouble to read the thread will spot it.........

There are some top notch Shaverisms too, so well worth a read just for that. :redface:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Regillus said:


> And how many tax credits do you check off on your 1040? Any at all? Then you're receiving gov't assistance. Are you so rich that you don't need gov't assistance? Then what are you taking it for?


LOL. I won't share with you my actual nominal tax rate (is that the proper term?:icon_scratch, but my present day annual federal tax bill, even after considering all those credits you assume I benefit from, is roughly equivalent to four years of my salary when I was first employed by our federal government! Seems fair to me. 

PS: I will concede to you, Regillus, that our President is really adept at demonizing and frequently vanquishing his opponents. It's just that what follows such campaigns deception almost never constructive and not even loosely in concert with the intent of our founding fathers!


----------



## Reldresal (Oct 13, 2011)

eagle2250 said:


> LOL. I won't share with you my actual nominal tax rate (is that the proper term?:icon_scratch, but my present day annual federal tax bill, even after considering all those credits you assume I benefit from, is roughly equivalent to four years of my salary when I was first employed by our federal government! Seems fair to me.
> 
> PS: I will concede to you, Regillus, that our President is really adept at demonizing and frequently vanquishing his opponents. It's just that what follows such campaigns deception almost never constructive and not even loosely in concert with the intent of our founding fathers!


While I probably agree with you philosophically and practically about taxes, your last line is curious to me. What was the intent of the "founding fathers" that you are referring to? To me they seemed to be quite at odds with how they wanted the nation to develop socially and economically. Also, why should we slavishly follow any one person or group from the distant past? Their worldview was a product of time and place just as ours is.

It would be laughable to hear someone say, "yeah, but that's not what King Alfred would have done." More modern? "Robert Walpole would turn in his grave if he knew!" Or, "yes, but Louis XIV, the true founder of modern France, would be horrified at this policy!" In 2013, I really do not care what Messrs. Jefferson, Washington, or Hamilton would think about our world. If I went back to their world, I would have some suggestions for them. I think that if they listened to me though there would be massive dislocation.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Sorry for any confusion. The final line in my post was a reference the thoughts of our founding fathers, as reflected in our Constitution. While President Obama is not the only President to attempt to trample over that timeless document, he seems to have been inclined to do so more consistently than his predecessors! Sadly the Supreme Court justices have become so slavishly connected to those who appointed them, they seem to have frequently lost focus of their responsibility to serve as the guardians of our Constitution and have acted accordingly.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Saying that your critical of him and then accusing other contributors of being critical only because of his race is quite a holier-than-thou double standard, isn't it? Unless, of course, your prime criticisms stem from his race...


----------



## Reldresal (Oct 13, 2011)

Ahhh, I see. I too was shocked at the health care mandate ruling. What a horrible precedent. Eminent domain for private interests (because it just might benefit the public interest, you see?). And this is with a relatively "conservative" court. 

I was recently reading cases on the 4th amendment. It struck me that the court was carving a lot of exceptions out of the amendment without legal bases. The bases were instead socio-economic...in other words, a "what is best for society" interpretation of an amendment written in plain English which does not carve out exceptions. But these are not legislative questions today. The judicial branch rules and the executive branch follows while the legislative branch silently watches. It's somewhat frightening. Only somewhat because they are not quite over the wall yet, but one can see them approaching with ladders.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
As a retired federal cop, I am particularly distressed by many of the provisions of the Patriot Act. Either people don't realize just how intrusively the Federal government monitors so very many aspects of their private lives (communications, financial records, tax/spending histories, travel habits, etc.) or we have become so dependent on the public dole that we just don't seem to care any more. These days, this just doesn't seem to be the same America I recall growing up in!


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

This thread represents the Republican party in the USA in a nutshell. A room full of grumpy, old, curmudgeons - arguing about which rotary phone or AM radio station is better...missing the point that their entire line of thinking is irrelevant and stuck in the past.

The only ambiguity is whether GW was the worst president in history or merely in the bottom 5. And the only people who disagree are right wingers who are both delusional and refusing to face that facts. 

The demographics of the electorate is changing, moving further and further away from this outdated image of the "good old days" - and no matter how many times you get thumped in national elections, some of you guy never learn and never admit you may have to change. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of guys.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Tilton said:


> Saying that your critical of him and then accusing other contributors of being critical only because of his race is quite a holier-than-thou double standard, isn't it? Unless, of course, your prime criticisms stem from his race...


I take it that mean me.... Well, I'm critical of him for not following through with his pledge to close Guantanamo for starters.

Following of the internment of Japanese Americans in 1942 or Northern Irish citizens during Operation Demetrius in 1971, it is an affront humanity when individuals are caged indefinitely, without any evidence of wrongdoing presented, or any opportunity to contest the accusations that have been made.

Yeah, I'm critical of that. And no, I don't believe that's because he's black. As Shaver pointed in another thread, members here have criticised him not just for how he carries himself politically or leads his country, but how he eats and drinks, how he dresses(in other threads as I remember), who he married and her behaviours too... and sometimes the same individuals are the constant in these criticisms across all those threads. In other words, he pretty much carries out his day in the same fashion and in the same manner as most all Presidents before him. Those same criticisms could be laid at the feet of almost any world leader, yet they never are. Just him. Why is that?


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

mrkleen said:


> This thread represents the Republican party in the USA in a nutshell. A room full of grumpy, old, curmudgeons - arguing about which rotary phone or AM radio station is better...missing the point that their entire line of thinking is irrelevant and stuck in the past.
> 
> The only ambiguity is whether GW was the worst president in history or merely in the bottom 5. And the only people who disagree are right wingers who are both delusional and refusing to face that facts.
> 
> The demographics of the electorate is changing, moving further and further away from this outdated image of the "good old days" - and no matter how many times you get thumped in national elections, some of you guy never learn and never admit you may have to change. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of guys.


More rope?


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

mrkleen said:


> This thread represents the Republican party in the USA in a nutshell. A room full of grumpy, old, curmudgeons - arguing about which rotary phone or AM radio station is better...missing the point that their entire line of thinking is irrelevant and stuck in the past.
> 
> The only ambiguity is whether GW was the worst president in history or merely in the bottom 5. And the only people who disagree are right wingers who are both delusional and refusing to face that facts.
> 
> The demographics of the electorate is changing, moving further and further away from this outdated image of the "good old days" - and no matter how many times you get thumped in national elections, some of you guy never learn and never admit you may have to change. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of guys.


You literally did not provide one single fact here. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you're trying to present your own personal opinon as a universal truth, though.



mrkleen said:


> And the only people who disagree are right wingers who are both delusional and refusing to face that facts.


The only people agreeing are left wingers, about which right wingers have the same sentiments you hold for them.



mrkleen said:


> missing the point that their entire line of thinking is irrelevant and stuck in the past.


Only stuck in the past to somenoe who doesn't agree with them. It is pretty relevant thinking for someone who agrees with that thinking.

For someone who probably proclaims their open-mindedness fairly often, I'll bet such open-mindedness is only applicable to ideas you agree with, not those you don't.



VictorRomeo said:


> I take it that mean me.... Well, I'm critical of him for not following through with his pledge to close Guantanamo for starters.
> 
> Following of the internment of Japanese Americans in 1942 or Northern Irish citizens during Operation Demetrius in 1971, it is an affront humanity when individuals are caged indefinitely, without any evidence of wrongdoing presented, or any opportunity to contest the accusations that have been made.
> 
> Yeah, I'm critical of that. And no, I don't believe that's because he's black. As Shaver pointed in another thread, members here have criticised him not just for how he carries himself politically or leads his country, but how he eats and drinks, how he dresses(in other threads as I remember), who he married and her behaviours too... and sometimes the same individuals are the constant in these criticisms across all those threads. In other words, he pretty much carries out his day in the same fashion and in the same manner as most all Presidents before him. Those same criticisms could be laid at the feet of almost any world leader, yet they never are. Just him. Why is that?


My point is simply that you have you reasons for being critical of Obama and they aren't racially motivated. What makes you think that most other critics don't have similar reasons?

Also, he may have poor table manners (I don't know, or care), but I wouldn't see that as a racial thing, although I know a whooooole lot of people who would.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Tilton said:


> My point is simply that you have you reasons for being critical of Obama and they aren't racially motivated. What makes you think that most other critics don't have similar reasons?


Because most all of those same criticisms levied here could be aimed at most any former president, yet tend to get overlooked. It transcends the bi-partisan nature of your political system too. In other words, Obama has been criticised for all sorts of things things in such a vociferous fashion - certainly in a fashion that no other President has. The way he is attacked is certainly more personal and somehow now deemed acceptable. But nobody dares mention the reason why.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

VictorRomeo said:


> Because most all of those same criticisms levied here could be aimed at most any former president, yet tend to get overlooked. It transcends the bi-partisan nature of your political system too. In other words, Obama has been criticised for all sorts of things things in such a vociferous fashion - certainly in a fashion that no other President has. The way he is attacked is certainly more personal and somehow now deemed acceptable. But nobody dares mention the reason why.


I wasn't on here pre-Obama, but I would imagine there was plenty of anti-Bush sentiment floating around. And, generally, I don't think what you're saying about Obama being the most criticized president in history is true. I recall vast criticism of Bush for all sorts of minor and ridiculous things, even though there were plenty of legitimate policy decisions to criticize. Indeed, I think the most personal attacks on a president, nationally, were against Bush and Cheney. I do think that, on the other end of the spectrum from what you're saying, criticizing Obama publicly is VERY taboo in many parts of America because a good many people will see you racist, whether you are or not.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

VictorRomeo said:


> In other words, Obama has been criticised for all sorts of things things in such a vociferous fashion - certainly in a fashion that no other President has.


The above statement is needlessly hyperbolic or suffers from selective memory.

I'm fairly certain that few Americans admired *Jimmy Carter's *presidency while he was in office. This led to some unfortunate caricatures of him (some funny and some mean) during his presidency and for a long time afterwards.

*Reagan* was mercilessly lampooned as a senile stupid old man during his presidency.

*Nixon* was hated by a number of Americans. A lot of the attacks were very personal...attacking his character and facial features...and some of these attacks were before Watergate and his presidency.

*Ford* was lampooned as being extremely clumsy and stupid.

*Kennedy* was hated for being Roman Catholic. The question (being asked at the time) was whether he would be loyal to his country or his pope.

I'm sure there are other examples from deeper into American history, but you see my point.


----------



## Reldresal (Oct 13, 2011)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> The above statement is needlessly hyperbolic or suffers from selective memory.
> 
> I'm fairly certain that few Americans admired *Jimmy Carter's *presidency while he was in office. This led to some unfortunate caricatures of him (some funny and some mean) during his presidency and for a long time afterwards.
> 
> ...


Like Lincoln. Or the attacks by Jackson's opponents. Adams was pilloried by Jefferson's people. Quincy Adams endured vociferous accusations of corruption. In both his and Jackson's case the opposition was strong enough to spawn a new party. Lincoln's opposition went to war.

The attacks on Obama are mild by comparison, and even in comparison to modern presidents like little Bush and Nixon. The media in general hated both of those guys.


----------



## rsgordon (Dec 6, 2012)

VictorRomeo said:


> Because most all of those same criticisms levied here could be aimed at most any former president, yet tend to get overlooked. It transcends the bi-partisan nature of your political system too. In other words, Obama has been criticised for all sorts of things things in such a vociferous fashion - certainly in a fashion that no other President has.  The way he is attacked is certainly more personal and somehow now deemed acceptable. But nobody dares mention the reason why.


Haha this is funny. I guess none of the news for the past 200 years trickled across the pond.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Ok. Did any of those have to endure a barrage of questioning on their country of birth? Of their loyalty to the American people as a result and their legitimacy to lead? (W excluded based on Florida?) Or their Christian credentials called into question as they had 'Hussein' as their middle name? To his credit, McCain shut that particular dog whistle down but there are large swaths of people who still buy into that and Republicans who take advantage of it. 

I suppose JFK's loyalties to Rome vs. America could be a distant comparison, but no previous President had to endure such levels of mistrust from people and an entire television news network.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

VictorRomeo said:


> I suppose JFK's loyalties to Rome vs. America could be a distant comparison, but no previous President had to endure such levels of mistrust from people and an entire television news network.


JFK's loyalities were questioned more seriously than you think. Growing up as a Southern Baptist in the mid 1970s, I was taught that Roman Catholics weren't true Christians and that they were all going to hell. Also, the pope was probably the anti-Christ. Kennedy ran for election in 1960. So, yes, I can believe that a number of American adults seriously questioned Kennedy's Christian credentials at that time.

Even in the last Presidential election, Romney's Mormanism probably lost him a few votes.

Reagan had three network news organizations against him. GWB had the same three networks and two major cable news organizations against him. GWB in particular was treated very harshly. Whether the criticism was fair or not, I've never heard him say a whoa-is-me once about his treatment by the media. In that respect, a graceful man.


----------



## Reldresal (Oct 13, 2011)

VictorRomeo said:


> I suppose JFK's loyalties to Rome vs. America could be a distant comparison, but no previous President had to endure such levels of mistrust from people and an entire television news network.


You have to be trolling at this point.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

Reldresal said:


> You have to be trolling at this point.


Tenacious? Yes. Troll? No.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Reldresal said:


> You have to be trolling at this point.


Let me direct you to post #68 as Shaver - as usual - puts it across it so well.......


----------



## Reldresal (Oct 13, 2011)

VictorRomeo said:


> Let me direct you to post #68 as Shaver - as usual - puts it across it so well.......


You were corrected as wrong before on the topic. You persist. I do not just disagree with you. Your facts are wrong. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. The Obama-is-attacked-more assertion is a statement of fact that is simply wrong, and that has been iterated by a few people here with supporting evidence. Thus, my opinion as to your behavior. Shaver had a much more legitimate protest.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> JFK's loyalities were questioned more seriously than you think. Growing up as a Southern Baptist in the mid 1970s, I was taught that Roman Catholics weren't true Christians and that they were all going to hell. Also, the pope was probably the anti-Christ. Kennedy ran for election in 1960. So, yes, I can believe that a number of American adults seriously questioned Kennedy's Christian credentials at that time.
> 
> Even in the last Presidential election, Romney's Mormanism probably lost him a few votes.
> 
> Reagan had three network news organizations against him. GWB had the same three networks and two major cable news organizations against him. GWB in particular was treated very harshly. Whether the criticism was fair or not, I've never heard him say a whoa-is-me once about his treatment by the media. In that respect, a graceful man.


Can't disagree with any of that. As you'd expect, JFK was held in the highest of esteem in this country so we never got to hear anything like that back then. However, on both sides of the religious divide here, it was perpetrated that both Catholics and Protestants ate their children (figuratively, of course!).

Remember too, I did highlight in my initial post that W was much maligned and treated harshly. Reagan too was held in very high esteem here you may be interested to learn, but it's fair to say that towards the end of his presidency, his faculties were leaving him.

That said, Fox News and how they reported Obama did take things to a new and utterly despicable all time low. Surely you can see that? Surely you can see they are intentionally manipulating racial tensions as a political strategy given how it appeals to a huge demographic?!


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

VictorRomeo said:


> Ok. Did any of those have to endure a barrage of questioning on their country of birth? Of their loyalty to the American people as a result and their legitimacy to lead? (W excluded based on Florida?) Or their Christian credentials called into question as they had 'Hussein' as their middle name? To his credit, McCain shut that particular dog whistle down but there are large swaths of people who still buy into that and Republicans who take advantage of it.
> 
> I suppose JFK's loyalties to Rome vs. America could be a distant comparison, but no previous President had to endure such levels of mistrust from people and an entire television news network.


I realize you are not really seeing the news coverage in America as we see it, but the whole birther movement was completely lampooned in the media aside from one organization, the same with religious affiliation. Three of four networks were very much on a crusade in favor of Obama while only one network took birtherism/Islam/dog-eating seriously. In terms of presidential elections, he won by a very good margin. Those questioning his ability to lead are no louder or more common than they were when Clinton was elected, they just came from the opposite side of the aisle. If McCain had been elected, I feel confident saying that the level of mistrust from the people would not have been much different, numbers wise, and three news networks would have been against him, just as they were with W.

Also, JFK's Catholocism was a *much* bigger deal than Obama's middle name. And, SHP is correct, I heard the same amount of hate speech from my friends on the left about Romney being a Morman as I did about Obama being a Muslim. Even Obama dropped subtle hints that Mormans are not average Americans - how many times did Obama make remarks about how much of a regular-beer-drinking-kind-of-guy he is?


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

VictorRomeo said:


> Can't disagree with any of that. As you'd expect, JFK was held in the highest of esteem in this country so we never got to hear anything like that back then. However, on both sides of the religious divide here, it was perpetrated that both Catholics and Protestants ate their children (figuratively, of course!).
> 
> Remember too, I did highlight in my initial post that W was much maligned and treated harshly. Reagan too was held in very high esteem here you may be interested to learn, but it's fair to say that towards the end of his presidency, his faculties were leaving him.
> 
> That said, Fox News and how they reported Obama did take things to a new and utterly despicable all time low. Surely you can see that? Surely you can see they are intentionally manipulating racial tensions as a political strategy given how it appeals to a huge demographic?!


JFK was generally a pretty poor president policy-wise, he was just the first young, handsome president, so he enjoyed a celebrity status.

Regarding Fox News comment: they were absolutely no worse (or better, for that matter) than any other news source. Sure, they might have manipulated racial tensions a bit for political gain, but on the same breath, don't try to say the other news networks aren't just as guilty of race baiting. Remember Trayvon Martin? The race baiting in the coverage of that story by the liberal media was easily equal to, if not greater than the race baiting by Fox News during the elections.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

You called troll - and you engage. If you believe me to be a troll, then don't engage or waste your time.... In any case, I believe genuine trolls would be offended to have me and my apologistic, hyperbolic laden, emotive claptrap associated with them.

Anyhow, I'll leave this one here and leave you with an article from the NY Times that I remember from way back...

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/opinion/sunday/political-racism-in-the-age-of-obama.html?_r=0


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

VictorRomeo said:


> Because most all of those same criticisms levied here could be aimed at most any former president, yet tend to get overlooked. It transcends the bi-partisan nature of your political system too. In other words, Obama has been criticised for all sorts of things things in such a vociferous fashion - *certainly in a fashion that no other President has*. The way he is attacked is certainly more personal and somehow now deemed acceptable. But nobody dares mention the reason why.


Hmmm. So your position is that President Bush wasn't subject to vitriolic personal abuse?


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

VictorRomeo said:


> ... but no previous President had to endure such levels of mistrust from people and an entire television news network.


This is truly delusional: all the major networks bar one were hostile to President Bush.

I see SNP has already picked this up.

Anyway, VR - see #3.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Lots of Texas Sharpshooters here tonight....


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

VictorRomeo said:


> That said, Fox News and how they reported Obama did take things to a new and utterly despicable all time low. Surely you can see that? Surely you can see they are intentionally manipulating racial tensions as a political strategy given how it appeals to a huge demographic?!


This is where we can agree to disagree.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

Tilton said:


> I heard the same amount of hate speech from my friends on the left about Romney being a Morman as I did about Obama being a Muslim. Even Obama dropped subtle hints that Mormans are not average Americans - how many times did Obama make remarks about how much of a regular-beer-drinking-kind-of-guy he is?


This is the first I've heard of playing the sobriety card in a negative way. Interesting.


----------



## rsgordon (Dec 6, 2012)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> This is the first I've heard of playing the sobriety card in a negative way. Interesting.


I was surprised how much being financially successful was also mocked for 2012. I thought this was desirable in America !


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

rsgordon said:


> I was surprised how much being financially successful was also mocked for 2012. I thought this was desirable in America !


Too right! Sorry to hear that this hurt Romney. Sadly, no self-made triple figure millionaire would be electable in the United Kingdom: there's a pincer movement from the inverse snobs who resent success and somehow think it's not "fair" and from certain upper class quarters who think it is vulgar to acquire wealth from business, rather than family. Sad to see this nonsense in the States, though.

Presumably it was the Wall Street versus Main Street issue in the 2012 election?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Balfour said:


> ... Sadly, no self-made triple figure millionaire would be electable in the United Kingdom: there's a pincer movement from the inverse snobs who resent success and somehow think it's not "fair" and from certain upper class quarters who think it is vulgar to acquire wealth from business, rather than family. Sad to see this nonsense in the States, though.


 Evelyn Waugh's view was that only criminals had the opportunity to become properly wealthy in this country.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> This is the first I've heard of playing the sobriety card in a negative way. Interesting.


At first it was just a novel approach to seem like a regular guy. Once this rhetoric hit fever pitch, it seemed really obvious to me. I don't recall hearing anything positive about sobriety.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

rsgordon said:


> I was surprised how much being financially successful was also mocked for 2012. I thought this was desirable in America !


It has to be gained in the right way.

If you're a celebrity (actor, musician, newscaster, columnist for the NYT, fashion designer, etc), athlete, green tech guru (internet, silicon valley, solar energy), or lottery winner, your wealth was earned the right way.

If you're a businessman, builder, banker, industrialist, or dirty energy guy, you're tainted because your money was made on the backs of your employees or your fellow Americans that you somehow swindled.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Getting back to the original topis of this thread, :

....and now the news media is telling us Jeb Bush, George W's younger brother, may seek candidacy in our next Presidential election and it seems a fair probability it could be against another of those dastardly Clintonsdevil...this time, Hillary C. Should such occur, let us not forget her sad excuse for a swan song as Secretary of State!


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

My goodness, eagle, that would be distressing indeed. I am deeply uncomfortable with these political dynasties. The last thing this country needs is heritable turns at the presidency!


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

eagle2250 said:


> Getting back to the original topis of this thread, :
> 
> ....and now the news media is telling us Jeb Bush, George W's younger brother, may seek candidacy in our next Presidential election and it seems a fair probability it could be against another of those dastardly Clintonsdevil...this time, Hillary C. Should such occur, let us not forget her sad excuse for a swan song as Secretary of State!


Re: Hillary

The democratic partie owes Hillary a considerable debt (her steadfastness during Bill's transgressions, getting snubbed by the DNC in 2008, throwing her under the bus on Benghazi) so my guess is that if she chooses to try to run (doubtful), she will be highly lauded by the party, but then edged out at DNC '16.

Jeb Bush wouldn't be bad, but he has that pesky last name that left a lot of folks with a bad taste in their mouth. He's good on immigration, which is good for the party at the moment.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Balfour said:


> *self-made triple figure millionaire*


Anyone that considers Mitt Romney a "self made man" needs to go look up the definition again.

In Romney's own words: "'Oh, you were born with a silver spoon,' you know, 'You never had to earn anything,' and so forth. And, and frankly, I was born with a silver spoon, which is the greatest gift you could have, which is to get born in America. I'll tell ya, there is -- 95 percent of life is set up for you if you're born in this country."

He was born to a wealthy and powerful family. While his father was governor of Michigan, the son attended an elite boarding school. His father also paid for his undergraduate education and his graduate study at Harvard Business School. His father then bought the younger Romneys a beautiful house in Massachusetts, lending them $42,000 in the 1970s. "We stayed there seven years and sold it for $90,000, so we not only stayed for free, we made money. As I said, Mitt's very bright,". 
The way Ann Romney has described her family's early years also helps to explain why Mitt Romney thinks it's easy to succeed in America. She apparently believes that all her husband's advantages don't count in judging his success -- he still made it on his own. "Mitt will be the first to tell you that he is the most fortunate man in the world. He had two loving parents who gave him strong values and taught him the value of work. He had the chance to get the education his father never had. But as his partner on this amazing journey, I can tell you Mitt Romney was not handed success," the Republican National Convention.

Mitt Romney believes the same thing. "By the way, both my dad and Ann's dad did quite well in their life, but when they came to the end of their lives and, and passed along inheritances to Ann and to me, we both decided to give it all away. So I had inherited nothing. Everything that Ann and I have, we earned the old-fashioned way, and that's by hard work," he told the gathering of wealthy donors in May.

The Romneys have described their early years as ones of real hardship, hardship they overcame through hard work -- and income from stocks.

"They were not easy years. You have to understand, I was raised in a lovely neighborhood, as was Mitt, and at [Brigham Young University], we moved into a $62-a-month basement apartment with a cement floor and lived there two years as students with no income ... Neither one of us had a job, because Mitt had enough of an investment from stock that we could sell off a little at a time," Ann Romney told the _Boston Globe_ in 1994. "We had no income except the stock we were chipping away at. We were living on the edge, not entertaining."

Prep School - BYU - Harvard Business School - Your First Home - Enough stocks to live off while you were getting your career off the ground. Yup, sounds self made to me :icon_smile_big:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Tilton: I agree with everything you said, but (as a lifelong Republican) must grudgingly admit that, overall, Hillary did a rather good job as Secretary of State!  

CuffDaddy: +1. The last thing this country needs is another Bush or Clinton or..... Whether it be the Presidency or the US Congress, we need a whole lot of new blood (and perspectives) in the mix. What we have currently and what we have had in the recent past has left the Nation wanting!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Then making a living by asset stripping unsuccessful businesses, and making their workers unemployed.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

I agree, eagle. It has become axiomatic in coroporate America that a more diverse team will generate better ultimate solutions than a team where everyone has the same background and way of thinking. Yet the value of name-recognition (and the early ability to attract TV cameras) is so high that we are drifting away from that in Presidential selections. About the only other ways to break through are to either have so much money that you can buy exposure and recognition, or have a notoriously-extreme view on one particular issue.

Then, of course, there's the separate issue that we complain about the quality of applicants we attract for our national chief executive, and then proceed to treat those applicants (and the ultimate hires) worse every year. We pay a fraction of the going rate in terms of salary (although the bennies package is nice, and it's hard to beat "POTUS" as a resume buff for the next gig). In what other situation does an employer think they will get better applicants by making the job more abusive? 

In short: The real problem with our leadership? The hiring committee - us.


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> In short: The real problem with our leadership? The hiring committee - us.


I completely agree with this statement.

Although, this is not exactly what you were saying in your post. It amazes me how the hiring committee works. How many people have no clue who, or why they are hiring the person they are.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

rsgordon said:


> I was surprised how much being financially successful was also mocked for 2012. I thought this was desirable in America !


The problem was that when Romney took over a company he made no serious attempt to see if it could be reorganized in a way that would save the company and its jobs - even if that meant trimming some jobs. He just shuttered the company and shipped all its jobs to China.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

You make it seem like he was slashing jobs from people who otherwise would be employed in great jobs for life. This sort of private equity investment won't really earn enough to be worthwhile if the businesses being purchased are not already going under. I don't know the statistics, but I would guess that more than 90% of those who lost their jobs because of Romney's PE deals would have lost their job a lot sooner had Bain not bought out their business. 

I don't see it as Bain's duty to make every effort to salvage jobs. The companies they buy are going down anyway, those workers are losing their jobs either way.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> My goodness, eagle, that would be distressing indeed. I am deeply uncomfortable with these political dynasties. The last thing this country needs is heritable turns at the presidency!


I enthusiastically agree with this. It's much too Roman. To be fair, both Hillary and Jeb have a lot to offer. Jeb is am impressive individual, and God knows he would have made a better President than his learning-disabled brother--the WORST President we have ever had (GHW Bush, in contrast, merits serious respect even among those like me who disagree with much of his policies). Hillary did an exceptional job at State. But to elect either would significantly weaken our democracy. I would urge all GOP faithful to fight against any Bushes who enter politics, just as I would urge all Dem faithful to fight against the Clintons. Not ad hominem. I see no reason to disparage Jeb as a person, and I am very put off by the degree of antipathy Hillary generates among some (which has everything to do with her being a woman, by the way). Still, we need to resist, hard.

So, as a Democrat, I've taken my stand and promise to advocate as much as I can against nominating Hillary (not that I have much influence, lol). Do I hear any Republicans out there willing to take a similar stand against Jeb? Remember, it's not about Jeb being bad or unqualified (he's neither), it's simply about preventing political dynasties. Too bad for Hillary. Too bad for Jeb. But that's how it's got to be.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

As a Democrat, I'm there with you on Hillary. That was perhaps the single biggest reason I supported Obama in the 2008 primaries over Hillary. 

I also agree re: Bushes Sr and Jr. But the whitewashing of W is underway... almost as though he died, but I guess the presidential library openings usually pull forth some revisionst fluffing.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Hey, Balfour.. Are you familiar with the writings of Andrew Sullivan? He's written some interesting stuff in which he's argued that Obama is the true Oakshottian Tory, whereas W. could not be called a conservative of any flavor.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Electing Hillary or Jeb wouldn't bother me one bit with regard to dynasties. Jeb has great things to offer that are very different from his father and brother and frankly, it would be a testament to his offerings to get the job. Think about it - he wouldn't be elected because his brother was also president, he would be elected in spite of his brother being, as you put it, "the WORST President we have ever had" (which I do not agree with, but every has a right to their opinion).

Similarly, I think Hillary has more than proven she is worth her salt. Even as a republican, I do not hesitate to say that she is the most impressive woman in America right now. And, really, she was the one who should have run instead of Bill in the first place (though she was totally unelectable at that time). Instead, she put her bread-winning career on the back burner to support Bill political carerr which, at the time, wasn't even close to the rising-star level of Obama at a similar stage. She's the genius of the pair, and she's also the better team player, as has been evidenced time and again.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

mrkleen: "self-made triple millionaire" not self-made man. Try reading. He made his fortune himself, he didn't inherit (as your post points out).

Chouan: You know you don't belong in this thread. Bog off. But your comment about his approach to "unsuccessful businesses" betrays your sympathies. You I suppose would nationalise them? That's one of the reasons why the economy went to Hell in a Handcart in the UK in the 1970s.

tocqueville: I value your thoughtful posts, and like Cuff, #3 does not apply to you. But your point about keeping good people out because of dynasties is silly. You seem to be saying that even if someone was the best man or woman for the job, they should be disqualified for their relatives. I can obviously see the argument that this is the 'thin end of the wedge', but never find those arguments to be particularly compelling. 

Very different to #43, but Governor Jeb Bush seems to have many admirable qualities.

I haven't read the Andrew Sullivan writing to which you refer, but I don't hold him in great esteem. I read all of Bob Woodward's books on Iraq, and found his (at the end, tending to be critical) analysis to be more persuasive than anything Mr. Sullivan has written.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> So, as a Democrat, I've taken my stand and promise to advocate as much as I can against nominating Hillary (not that I have much influence, lol). Do I hear any Republicans out there willing to take a similar stand against Jeb? Remember, it's not about Jeb being bad or unqualified (he's neither), it's simply about preventing political dynasties. Too bad for Hillary. Too bad for Jeb. But that's how it's got to be.


You can count on me!!


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

" even if someone was the best man or woman for the job, they should be disqualified for their relatives"

The problem is that people who are parts of political dynasties often APPEAR to be "the best man or woman for the job" when they are, in fact, not. It's essentially impossible for us to fairly evaluate those candidates. They have a massive advantage built in. Given that selection of leaders is a probabilistic, uncertainty-filled proccess, something that injects so much noise into the signal is very bad for decision-making.

It's now quite standard for corporate organizations to have anti-nepotism rules against hiring relatives of executives for just this reason.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Balfour said:


> mrkleen: "self-made triple millionaire" not self-made man. Try reading. He made his fortune himself, he didn't inherit (as your post points out).
> 
> Chouan: You know you don't belong in this thread. Bog off. But your comment about his approach to "unsuccessful businesses" betrays your sympathies. You I suppose would nationalise them? That's one of the reasons why the economy went to Hell in a Handcart in the UK in the 1970s.
> 
> ...


Be wary of Woodward (I haven't read those particular books but will do so shortly for professional reasons). He embellishes.

Some of Sullivan's work is persuasive, some not, but his arguments about conservatism are, at the very least, food for thought. I read a book he wrote about the topic that I found quite good, although perhaps too grounded in British conservative thinking--which I know nothing about--for me to judge as well as I might had I more knowledge of the subject. Anyway, here's a sampling: https://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2012/08/24/americas-tory-president/

I stand with MrKleen and Chouan re: Romney. He did significantly enlarge his fortune, but he can hardly be described as self-made. As they say in American baseball, he scored a run but started on third base. His corporate record speaks to a lot of what's wrong with the American economy. Frankly, he was a parasite. Lastly, his 47% speech pushed me from the "respectfully disagree" category to "actively despise." He made me nostalgic for guys like Bob Dole, whom I regard as a perfectly decent human being who would have made a fine president, even if I voted against him.

I wish to stress that as much as I vilify W. and Romney, I don't do that as a knee jerk reaction. I supported McCain for years and seriously wish he had won the 2000 election primaries, although by 2008 I think he'd sort of lost it and represented too much of the status quo. Now he really just needs to retire. I don't think I ever had anything negative to say about Dole; GHWB I disagreed with but respect. Reagan, well, I have less respect for him but perhaps only in reaction to the beatification that he has undergone. As for why I despise W., I don't have the time to write the 100 pages I could write about why I think he did more damage to this country than anyone since John Wilkes Booth. The best I can say for him is that he did not intend to do harm; I'm not so sure about his Vice President, who is truly a villain.

Electing heirs would do serious damage to our political culture, notwithstanding the talents of the individuals in question. It makes power more opaque, it concentrates power in too few hands. It reinforces social stratification. It diminishes meritocracy. I just can't see how it would be worth it even given the merits of Jeb and Hillary.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> " even if someone was the best man or woman for the job, they should be disqualified for their relatives"
> 
> The problem is that people who are parts of political dynasties often APPEAR to be "the best man or woman for the job" when they are, in fact, not. It's essentially impossible for us to fairly evaluate those candidates. They have a massive advantage built in. Given that selection of leaders is a probabilistic, uncertainty-filled proccess, something that injects so much noise into the signal is very bad for decision-making.
> 
> It's now quite standard for corporate organizations to have anti-nepotism rules against hiring relatives of executives for just this reason.


There is no other way to explain W.'s political success and why anyone would have taken him seriously...or backed his business ventures. Connections also go a long way to explain Jeb's success as well, not to mention GHW Bush, who himself was the son of an exceptionally wealthy Senator. I don't know who Prescot Bush's father was, but I suspect he was no rags to riches story himself.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> " even if someone was the best man or woman for the job, they should be disqualified for their relatives"_The problem is that people who are parts of political dynasties often APPEAR to be "the best man or woman for the job" when they are, in fact, not. _It's essentially impossible for us to fairly evaluate those candidates. They have a massive advantage built in. Given that selection of leaders is a probabilistic, uncertainty-filled proccess, something that injects so much noise into the signal is very bad for decision-making.
> 
> *It's now quite standard for corporate organizations to have anti-nepotism rules against hiring relatives of executives for just this reason.
> *


Underlined: Possibly, but not the point I was responding to.

Bold: Not analogous.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Good guess. Here's what wikipedia has to say about Prescott Bush's father: "Samuel Bush was a railroad executive, then a steel company president and, during World War I, also a federal government official in charge of coordination of and assistance to major weapons contractors."


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

At the end of the day, Balfour, I wouldn't necessarily expect a Brit to understand my views on this. You guys still have a peerage, house of lords, etc. While I find that fascinating and charming, our country was founded, in large part, on the notion that herreditary power structures are not meritocracies. Of course, I also believe that the estate tax is the one tax we ought to keep even if it turns out that we require no government revenues whatsoever.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

tocqueville said:


> His corporate record speaks to a lot of what's wrong with the American economy. Frankly, he was a parasite.


Please elaborate.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> At the end of the day, Balfour, I wouldn't necessarily expect a Brit to understand my views on this. You guys still have a peerage, house of lords, etc. While I find that fascinating and charming, our country was founded, in large part, on the notion that herreditary power structures are not meritocracies. Of course, I also believe that the estate tax is the one tax we ought to keep even if it turns out that we require no government revenues whatsoever.


Fair enough - my limited standing already acknowledged above (although I am fairly conversant in US political affairs by British standards, at least).

My response was to the (somewhat extreme) suggestion that it was desirable that the best candidate should not be elected because of his or her surname, rather than the more subtle points raised by your post. Of course name recognition gives you an advantage in political matters (especially as politics and celebrity become ever more intertwined - something the Donkeys never trade off of course). And sometimes someone will simply be a better candidate because of the advantages they have enjoyed in life. But it's pretty extreme to argue that you should rule out candidates like Secretary Clinton or Governor Bush in limine because of their surnames (whatever one may think of their politics).

As for inheritance tax, I find myself in the unfortunate position of again disagreeing with you very strongly. A greedy, populist second bite of the cherry. I respect Carnegie ("A kept dollar is a stinking fish", etc.), but this is back to the choice versus Government expropriation theme thrashed out in the Lady Thatcher thread.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Tilton said:


> Please elaborate.


This is a good start:

https://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/10/01/121001fa_fact_lemann


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> Good guess. Here's what wikipedia has to say about Prescott Bush's father: "Samuel Bush was a railroad executive, then a steel company president and, during World War I, also a federal government official in charge of coordination of and assistance to major weapons contractors."


Nothing like that intersection of business and government interests to make a wealthy man a lot wealthier. I'm sure he and his friends did very well by those weapons contracts...patriotic and lucrative.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

"But it's pretty extreme to argue that you should rule out candidates like Secretary Clinton or Governor Bush in limine because of their surnames (whatever one may think of their politics)."

Again, the problem is that it's very hard to make a clear-eyed projection of their actual performance in office because of the familial connection. When you add to that the de facto creation of ruling families, something that is noxious to the American spirit, then I conclude that something approaching a bright-line rule (in my own decision-making, not de jure) is best.

On the inheritance tax, I think there is simply a difference between a dollar earned and a dollar inherited. I don't begrudge the former. The latter often has corrosive and destablizing effects on society and the individual if there are enough of them. I'm certainly not again modest inheritances, nor even substantial inheritances. I am against immense inherittances that pass down through the generations, growing through interest, and setting families apart as true aristocracy. The ever-growing gap between rich and poor concerns me greatly. Since I am not of a mind to embrace socialism and cap income, I at least want to make sure that the gap is not cummulative through time.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

tocqueville said:


> This is a good start:
> 
> https://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/10/01/121001fa_fact_lemann


I don't agree with you, but I respect your opinion. I don't think anyone in business should have their priority as creating jobs - a business exists to make money, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Also, Lemann is hardly an unbiased writer.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Balfour said:


> mrkleen: "self-made triple millionaire" not self-made man. Try reading. He made his fortune himself, he didn't inherit (as your post points out).


LOL.

Mitt Romney had success handed to him his entire life. Disgustingly rich from birth, raised in prep schools, no early exposure to minorities outside of maids, a powerful daddy to clean up his missteps, and timely exemptions from military service.

Everyone knows that he is fantastically rich, having scored great success, the legend goes, as a "turnaround specialist," a shrewd financial operator who revived moribund companies as a high-priced consultant for a storied Wall Street private equity firm. But what most voters don't know is the way Mitt Romney actually made his fortune: by borrowing vast sums of money that other people were forced to pay back. Mitt Romney is one of the greatest and most irresponsible debt creators of all time. In the past few decades, in fact, Romney has piled more debt onto more unsuspecting companies, written more gigantic checks that other people have to cover, than perhaps all but a handful of people on planet Earth.

Great guy to look up to.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Tilton said:


> I don't agree with you, but I respect your opinion. I don't think anyone in business should have their priority as creating jobs - a business exists to make money, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
> 
> Also, Lemann is hardly an unbiased writer.


Lemann makes an interesting argument in terms of the shift in thinking in the business world in favor of making money based on transactions rather than producing things. So R. pioneered the business of cashing in on transactions that generally translated into zero interest in adding value. From everything I've read about the direction our economy has taken in the past few decades, I'd argue that the net result of such a cultural shift has been disastrous for us. It's not R.'s fault, but other than congratulating him on being clever enough to figure out how to ride the wave and do it really profitably, I see no reason to applaud him. He's no hero. And in that context, his 47% tells me that a) he can't get past a sense of smugness for having been so clever, and b) has no clue about how the rest of us live. I listened to that speech and had but one reaction: "Fudge you."

Here's my other 'favorite' R. moment. Priceless:


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Not to take this thread further down the Romney path, but I'd offer this observation. While a Democrat, I'm a somewhat conservative one by modern standards (go see the gun enthusiast thread for a reminder, if you like). I'm fairly pro-business. I spend a lot of time with, and working for, business people. Bankers, executives, etc. I came into the 2012 campaign with a relatively favorable view of Romney. I felt sure he would win if he got the nomination, and wasn't that distressed about the prospect. I wasn't planning to vote for him, but I was optimistic that, if elected, he'd do a competent job on most issues. By the end of the campaign, I liked him a heck of a lot less, and that was 100% due to things he said and did. The more I listened to him, the less I liked him. I didn't ever grow to hate him (nowhere near MrKleen's views, nor even quite as far as Tocq'), but my degree of preference for Obama got much stronger by November.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> LOL.
> 
> Mitt Romney had success handed to him his entire life. Disgustingly rich from birth, raised in prep schools, no early exposure to minorities outside of maids, a powerful daddy to clean up his missteps, and timely exemptions from military service.
> 
> ...


This business about timely exemptions from military service is an interesting one. It's noteworthy how few of our politicians these days served (I chuckled when R. put up his church service as comparable to military duty in Vietnam in the video above..I know, living in Bordeaux in the 1960s must have been a serious challenge for a young man). I suspect that will change as Iraq and Afghanistan vets work their way up, as it should. For the sake of balance, I post this amazing video of a guy who genuinely put his life on the limb for his country and sought no easy out, GHWB:






In those days even the richest young men never thought twice about joining up.

Compare with W.'s ridiculous "Mission Accomplished" stunt, when he landed on a carrier, after having dodged combat duty back when it was his time to do so.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Quite frankly, if the son George W. was truly seeking an exemption from military service, there would have been far more certain ways of avoiding the obvious risks to body and soul (a medical deferment for flat feet, perhaps), than joining the Texas Air National Guard and going off to 54 weeks of basic flight training, followed by ten additional months of advanced flight training in the F4 Phantom. The Phantom was/is not a forgiving bird to fly and staying current required George W. to repeatedly climb in the beast and put his neck on the line, as he continued to hone his skills (for six years, I think)...should he have been called on to deploy! How many of the cardiac cowboys in our midst would have personal courage/fortitude to replicate George W's military service?


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

tocqueville said:


> Compare with W.'s ridiculous "Mission Accomplished" stunt, when he landed on a carrier, after having dodged combat duty back when it was his time to do so.


Oh, please. "Mission accomplished" was political spin that had gone wrong (and spin is endemic on both sides of the fence). My understanding is that it was requested by the Navy. Secretary Rumsfeld was horrified by that expression, and his notes on the speech were accepted. There was a SNAFU about the banner, but using this as a stick to bash 43's patriotism is pretty weak.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

mrkleen said:


> Mitt Romney had success handed to him his entire life. Disgustingly rich from birth, raised in prep schools, no early exposure to minorities outside of maids,


What a twisted view of the world you have. Some how it is evil, or wrong, to be born into a wealthy family and receive a good private education. And "disgusting" is a funny adjective to apply to wealth unless you're a socialist.

Point is, the man made something of his life. His business success was not inherited.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

There will be Bush-Bashing regarding the unemployment rate during Hillary's second term.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Balfour said:


> Oh, please. "Mission accomplished" was political spin that had gone wrong (and spin is endemic on both sides of the fence). My understanding is that it was requested by the Navy. Secretary Rumsfeld was horrified by that expression, and his notes on the speech were accepted. There was a SNAFU about the banner, but using this as a stick to bash 43's patriotism is pretty weak.


I can forgive buffoonery. I cannot forgive him for Iraq and for making the country weaker.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

tocqueville said:


> I can forgive buffoonery. I cannot forgive him for Iraq and for making the country weaker.


But you're flitting about between different points now. I take that to mean that you accept then that your "Mission Accomplished" quip (to which my post that you quoted was a response) was a cheap shot?


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Balfour said:


> But you're flitting about between different points now. I take that to mean that you accept then that your "Mission Accomplished" quip (to which my post that you quoted was a response) was a cheap shot?


Yes and no. I meant it as a cheap shot. Yet it is no small matter given what it says about his approach to war and foreign policy.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

tocqueville said:


> Yes and no. I meant it as a cheap shot. Yet it is no small matter given what it says about his approach to war and foreign policy.


But you miss my point entirely, which was it was not a personal sentiment of 43, but a comms SNAFU. That speech, as I understand, was debated within the Administration and was carefully calibrated to refer to 'major combat operations', etc. and to avoid triumphalism. See my reference to Secretary Rumsfeld's notes above. So I don't think it reflects poorly on 43 at all.

If you have any experience of Government, you know - in any Administration (UK, American; Republican, Democratic; Tory, Labour) - there is a high degree of spin. The spinmeisters sometimes fcuk up. But that doesn't ipso facto call into question the integrity of the principals.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Balfour said:


> Chouan: You know you don't belong in this thread. Bog off.


You've got such a way with words Balfour, so persuasive, and so measured in your use of evidence to prove your points.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Chouan said:


> You've got such a way with words Balfour, so persuasive, and so measured in your use of evidence to prove your points.


It seems that your logical faculties are failing again, as you seem to be concluding "inability" where in fact my position is (expressed) "disinclination".

As I said in response to Cuff, a toast doesn't need to rehash all the well-worn arguments. It can simply be an expression of admiration.

Even then, with members I respect but who have very different views to me (Cuff, tocqueville, etc.), I enjoy having a little banter.

Remember - I'm not seeking your vote, nor to change (what passes for) your mind.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

I have received more support in this thread than I was anticipating. President Bush was a misunderstood President, grossly traduced by a biased media. His motives and instincts were good. As I said at the beginning, the judgment of history will be kinder.

And - having briefly emerged from retirement to enjoy the banter of the last few weeks - to that I return. As some of you know, I have heavy demands on my time this year and find the forum to be somewhat of a time-thief.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Balfour said:


> But you miss my point entirely, which was it was not a personal sentiment of 43, but a comms SNAFU. That speech, as I understand, was debated within the Administration and was carefully calibrated to refer to 'major combat operations', etc. and to avoid triumphalism. See my reference to Secretary Rumsfeld's notes above. So I don't think it reflects poorly on 43 at all.
> 
> If you have any experience of Government, you know - in any Administration (UK, American; Republican, Democratic; Tory, Labour) - there is a high degree of spin. The spinmeisters sometimes fcuk up. But that doesn't ipso facto call into question the integrity of the principals.


Iraq was no SNAFU. I do believe he had the best intentions, but he was criminally incompetent and captive to wicked men. I will not toast that man.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

tocqueville said:


> Iraq was no SNAFU.


I must resist this temptation, but I didn't say that: I said (in response to your jibe about it) that putting a banner on an aircraft carrier saying "Mission Accomplished" was a comms SNAFU (& was recognised as such within the Administration). I would not denigrate the sacrifices made by US, British and other Coalition forces in Iraq by describing the Iraq conflict using such a disrespectfully pithy expression.

Anyway, one response to Shaver in the Lady Thatcher thread and then it really is over and out.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Balfour said:


> I must resist this temptation, but I didn't say that: I said (in response to your jibe about it) that putting a banner on an aircraft carrier saying "Mission Accomplished" was a comms SNAFU (& was recognised as such within the Administration). I would not denigrate the sacrifices made by US, British and other Coalition forces in Iraq by describing the Iraq conflict using such a disrespectfully pithy expression.
> 
> Anyway, one response to Shaver in the Lady Thatcher thread and then it really is over and out.


I do not misrepresent you. I know that you were referring to the banner, which to me is a trivial matter that unfortunately resonates with the whole. Otherwise, is it denigrating the sacrifices of the men and women of the US/UK/etc. militaries to state the truth, which is that the man who sent them into harms way had no good reason for doing so, and that American military's civilian leaders acted out of staggering hubris? That they--and we--were lied to?

I do not think so.

Of course, most of the lying came from Cheney, whose relationship with W. reminds me all too much of the Angela Landsbury character and her relationship with her husband in the Manchurian Candidate. But Rumsfeld, Feith, Wolfowitz, etc., were all in the fore, lending their weight to the drive off the cliff.

I am angry at Bush for so misusing those men and women and their families, not to mention the shabby treatment he gave our best friends abroad by dragging him into the war. He helped break the British Army (it is broken, just look at the "British Army 2020" plan issued late last year) and, I think, squandered a lot of good will in the UK and elsewhere. He completely took his eye off Afghanistan and undermined the effort there for the sake of Iraq; he significantly weakened us vis a vis Iran (which all but held us hostage in Iraq and can make Afghanistan a living hell for us in Afghanistan at will). All the while making clear that his number one priority was not fighting terror or protecting democracy but saving his bloody tax cuts. That's not good policy, it's fealty to dogma.

I can recall a terrible moment during a presidential debate I think in the 1980s, when the Dem let slip that the Americans who died in the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut had died in vain. The opponent jumped on that with false outrage, and the Dem weakly backed off. It was a terrible moment, because, in fact, those Marines had died in vain (they were there for ill conceived reasons, the mission accomplished nothing), and for once someone had dared speak the truth. God bless the USMC, but the fact that they are willing to bleed at the pleasure of the President means that any President who would so lightly abuse that willingness as W. was in 2003 is damnable in my eyes. Living and working in DC, I've yet to meet anyone inside the USG or out who has a good explanation for why we went to war, and none thinks we are better off for it.

I could go on, but like you, Balfour, I am torn between the desire to respond at length to worthy and important arguments and the need to be mindful of my time. This is why I usually avoid the Interchange. It is a pity, since I'm sure that both of us have a lot more to say and could make stronger arguments had we the time to do so.

I wish you a productive "retirement", and hope that one day we can duke it out re: world affairs over a pint or two. Or three. We can toast Task Force Helmand.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Balfour said:


> What a twisted view of the world you have. Some how it is evil, or wrong, to be born into a wealthy family and receive a good private education. And "disgusting" is a funny adjective to apply to wealth unless you're a socialist.
> 
> Point is, the man made something of his life. His business success was not inherited.


Not wrong to be born wealthy....it is very fortunate as Romney himself said. And Mitt certain is a successful business man. But to suggest as you did above that he is "Self Made" is just ridiculous. He (like GW in the famous Ann Richards quote) was born with a silver foot in his mouth - he woke up on third base and wants you to believe he hit a triple.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Romney/Bush..."woke up on third base and wants you to believe he hit a triple." Perhaps so, but then Gw went on to buy the ball club and running it for quite some time, made a whole lot of additional money doing it! Whould or does that not make him a successful 'businessman' on his own merits?


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

To my knowledge, he never implied he was a rags-to-riches story. Even the Lemann article in the New Yorker pretty clearly portrays a very, very bright man with ambition and the business acumen to make his ambition reality. He was valdictorian at BYU and graduated in the top 5% of one of the top 3 business schools and earned a law degree from the top law school at the same time.

I have a distinct feeling you would not feel so disgusting had you been born to the same pedigree. Of course, working for the Catholic Church, I would be remiss not to quote the late Archbishop Sheen: "Jealousy is the tribute mediocrity pays to genius."


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Romney/Bush..."woke up on third base and wants you to believe he hit a triple." Perhaps so, but then Gw went on to buy the ball club and running it for quite some time, made a whole lot of additional money doing it! Whould or does that not make him a successful 'businessman' on his own merits?


He made a tidy sum with that team by investing money he never would have had access to had he not been who he was. He also got the local government to build him a stadium using tax-payers money, which increased the value of his investment. That's what I mean by starting from third base.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Tilton said:


> To my knowledge, he never implied he was a rags-to-riches story. Even the Lemann article in the New Yorker pretty clearly portrays a very, very bright man with ambition and the business acumen to make his ambition reality. He was valdictorian at BYU and graduated in the top 5% of one of the top 3 business schools and earned a law degree from the top law school at the same time.
> 
> I have a distinct feeling you would not feel so disgusting had you been born to the same pedigree. Of course, working for the Catholic Church, I would be remiss not to quote the late Archbishop Sheen: "Jealousy is the tribute mediocrity pays to genius."


I think we can all agree that R. is a really sharp guy. As a stock holder I might well want him to be my company's CEO.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

tocqueville said:


> I think we can all agree that R. is a really sharp guy. As a stock holder I might well want him to be my company's CEO.


Right, and my point is that Romeny is an extremely impressive business mogul in his own right, completely exclusive of his father. His career trajectory is rather unlike his fathers, so he didn't really make his fortune riding George's coattails as a company man. It is logical to assume that very smart people will usually have very smart parents and highly intelligent and ambitious individuals are more likely to succeed, so success breeds success in many cases (for the counter argument: Paris Hilton).


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Tilton said:


> Right, and my point is that Romeny is an extremely impressive business mogul in his own right, completely exclusive of his father. His career trajectory is rather unlike his fathers, so he didn't really make his fortune riding George's coattails as a company man. It is logical to assume that very smart people will usually have very smart parents and highly intelligent and ambitious individuals are more likely to succeed, so success breeds success in many cases (for the counter argument: Paris Hilton).


I think you underestimate the advantage gained from being born into and growing up in a certain milieu, with certain connections, not to speak of capital and the security of a robust family safety net that facilitates risk taking. Fortunately in our society such things are not destiny. Obama's rise to the presidency (Clinton's too) from his obscure background is case in point, and it's something we should all be proud of. Comparatively speaking W. and R., as I said, had a serious head start.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

^^^

And when Gore and Kerry were successfully cast as effete, pompous gigolos by "regular Texas rancher guy" Bush, they lost!!


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> ^^^
> 
> And when Gore and Kerry were successfully cast as effete, pompous gigolos by "regular Texas rancher guy" Bush, they lost!!


True. It was ironic, given that Bush, Gore, and Kerry are cut from the same clothe.


----------



## doncorleon (Apr 26, 2013)

I'm honestly mixed on Bush. I strongly disagree with his decision to invade Iraq, which was a very painful mistake. Otherwise, his presidency was favorable. I'm neither liberal or conservative (more of an independent), but I think many of Bush's critics (as well as Obama) miss the mark completely.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

History will judge Bush's foreign policy, and he will not always be "misunderestimated."

https://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/


----------



## Reldresal (Oct 13, 2011)

doncorleon said:


> I'm honestly mixed on Bush.* I strongly disagree with his decision to invade Iraq, which was a very painful mistake.* Otherwise, his presidency was favorable. I'm neither liberal or conservative (more of an independent), but I think many of Bush's critics (as well as Obama) miss the mark completely.


Other than that how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Reldresal said:


> Other than that how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?


Exactly.


----------

