Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
drboom
Participant[quote=condogrrl]Yesterday I finally got around to watching “The Obama Deception” that I think I learned about from Pigginton’s. Yes, it could be just a bunch of film pieces spliced together to present a conspiracy theory. But there was enough truth to it for me to believe the overall theme of the movie: there is a power group operating behind the scenes engineering the whole thing. I recommend you watch this, if you haven’t already.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw%5B/quote%5D
Yesterday’s news, sad to say.
“Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.”
– Theodore Roosevelt
Participant[quote=EconProf]Actually ANY existing president in the aftermath of 9/11 would have reaped the accolades of a suddenly unified nation. I wouldn’t call that his finest hour.[/quote]
Lots of presidents have addressed the nation during a crisis, but few have done better.
[quote]I would instead nominate his courage in opting for the surge in Iraq, against most all pundits’ advice, the political and popular sentiment, and even some CYA military figures. (Oh, and one particular Illinois senator on the make). It worked beyond anyone’s expectations, and is now about to be copied in Afghanistan.[/quote]
The jury is still out on that one. No one can reasonably argue whether a country can be pacified if enough firepower is brought to bear. The real test will come after we pull out. If the PNAC dream of a functioning Iraqi democracy emerges, then you have success. If the place falls apart, it’s an epic fail.
[quote]Another less-recognized accomplishment will be the revenue increases throughout most of his eight years in office flowing from a growth oriented economy. We sure miss that now.
[/quote]You can’t be serious. That “growth” has been revealed to be an even bigger mirage than Clinton’s bogus budget “surplus” (only a surplus if you counted Social Security contributions toward the general fund). I don’t want to engage in an ad hominem attack, but are you really a professor of economics?
Participant[quote=EconProf]Actually ANY existing president in the aftermath of 9/11 would have reaped the accolades of a suddenly unified nation. I wouldn’t call that his finest hour.[/quote]
Lots of presidents have addressed the nation during a crisis, but few have done better.
[quote]I would instead nominate his courage in opting for the surge in Iraq, against most all pundits’ advice, the political and popular sentiment, and even some CYA military figures. (Oh, and one particular Illinois senator on the make). It worked beyond anyone’s expectations, and is now about to be copied in Afghanistan.[/quote]
The jury is still out on that one. No one can reasonably argue whether a country can be pacified if enough firepower is brought to bear. The real test will come after we pull out. If the PNAC dream of a functioning Iraqi democracy emerges, then you have success. If the place falls apart, it’s an epic fail.
[quote]Another less-recognized accomplishment will be the revenue increases throughout most of his eight years in office flowing from a growth oriented economy. We sure miss that now.
[/quote]You can’t be serious. That “growth” has been revealed to be an even bigger mirage than Clinton’s bogus budget “surplus” (only a surplus if you counted Social Security contributions toward the general fund). I don’t want to engage in an ad hominem attack, but are you really a professor of economics?
Participant[quote=EconProf]Actually ANY existing president in the aftermath of 9/11 would have reaped the accolades of a suddenly unified nation. I wouldn’t call that his finest hour.[/quote]
Lots of presidents have addressed the nation during a crisis, but few have done better.
[quote]I would instead nominate his courage in opting for the surge in Iraq, against most all pundits’ advice, the political and popular sentiment, and even some CYA military figures. (Oh, and one particular Illinois senator on the make). It worked beyond anyone’s expectations, and is now about to be copied in Afghanistan.[/quote]
The jury is still out on that one. No one can reasonably argue whether a country can be pacified if enough firepower is brought to bear. The real test will come after we pull out. If the PNAC dream of a functioning Iraqi democracy emerges, then you have success. If the place falls apart, it’s an epic fail.
[quote]Another less-recognized accomplishment will be the revenue increases throughout most of his eight years in office flowing from a growth oriented economy. We sure miss that now.
[/quote]You can’t be serious. That “growth” has been revealed to be an even bigger mirage than Clinton’s bogus budget “surplus” (only a surplus if you counted Social Security contributions toward the general fund). I don’t want to engage in an ad hominem attack, but are you really a professor of economics?
Participant[quote=EconProf]Actually ANY existing president in the aftermath of 9/11 would have reaped the accolades of a suddenly unified nation. I wouldn’t call that his finest hour.[/quote]
Lots of presidents have addressed the nation during a crisis, but few have done better.
[quote]I would instead nominate his courage in opting for the surge in Iraq, against most all pundits’ advice, the political and popular sentiment, and even some CYA military figures. (Oh, and one particular Illinois senator on the make). It worked beyond anyone’s expectations, and is now about to be copied in Afghanistan.[/quote]
The jury is still out on that one. No one can reasonably argue whether a country can be pacified if enough firepower is brought to bear. The real test will come after we pull out. If the PNAC dream of a functioning Iraqi democracy emerges, then you have success. If the place falls apart, it’s an epic fail.
[quote]Another less-recognized accomplishment will be the revenue increases throughout most of his eight years in office flowing from a growth oriented economy. We sure miss that now.
[/quote]You can’t be serious. That “growth” has been revealed to be an even bigger mirage than Clinton’s bogus budget “surplus” (only a surplus if you counted Social Security contributions toward the general fund). I don’t want to engage in an ad hominem attack, but are you really a professor of economics?
Participant[quote=EconProf]Actually ANY existing president in the aftermath of 9/11 would have reaped the accolades of a suddenly unified nation. I wouldn’t call that his finest hour.[/quote]
Lots of presidents have addressed the nation during a crisis, but few have done better.
[quote]I would instead nominate his courage in opting for the surge in Iraq, against most all pundits’ advice, the political and popular sentiment, and even some CYA military figures. (Oh, and one particular Illinois senator on the make). It worked beyond anyone’s expectations, and is now about to be copied in Afghanistan.[/quote]
The jury is still out on that one. No one can reasonably argue whether a country can be pacified if enough firepower is brought to bear. The real test will come after we pull out. If the PNAC dream of a functioning Iraqi democracy emerges, then you have success. If the place falls apart, it’s an epic fail.
[quote]Another less-recognized accomplishment will be the revenue increases throughout most of his eight years in office flowing from a growth oriented economy. We sure miss that now.
[/quote]You can’t be serious. That “growth” has been revealed to be an even bigger mirage than Clinton’s bogus budget “surplus” (only a surplus if you counted Social Security contributions toward the general fund). I don’t want to engage in an ad hominem attack, but are you really a professor of economics?
Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=drboom][quote=surveyor]My proof lies in that his aility to fly a plane, pass the test and meet qualifications is proof of his intelligence. Those facts expose the lie that he is unintelligent.
[/quote]Randy Cunningham was a hell of a fighter pilot. He is one of only two American pilot aces in the Vietnam War.
He also did some things a little later that fairly reek of arrogant stupidity.
Now what’s your point again?[/quote]
There’s a difference between intelligence and making mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes, intelligent or otherwise. That doesn’t make them unintelligent. It just makes them human.
[/quote]The nature and magnitude of Duke’s “mistakes” argue against being smart. If he was so bright he would have been a smidge less obvious, and I don’t think you can call a sustained pattern of corruption a “mistake”.
Anyway, House staffers voted Cunningham the prestigious “No Rocket Scientist” award in 2004, a year before the corruption story broke. Otnay ootay ightbray, according to those who worked with him. Yet he was a hot fighter pilot.
Next genius theory, please?
Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=drboom][quote=surveyor]My proof lies in that his aility to fly a plane, pass the test and meet qualifications is proof of his intelligence. Those facts expose the lie that he is unintelligent.
[/quote]Randy Cunningham was a hell of a fighter pilot. He is one of only two American pilot aces in the Vietnam War.
He also did some things a little later that fairly reek of arrogant stupidity.
Now what’s your point again?[/quote]
There’s a difference between intelligence and making mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes, intelligent or otherwise. That doesn’t make them unintelligent. It just makes them human.
[/quote]The nature and magnitude of Duke’s “mistakes” argue against being smart. If he was so bright he would have been a smidge less obvious, and I don’t think you can call a sustained pattern of corruption a “mistake”.
Anyway, House staffers voted Cunningham the prestigious “No Rocket Scientist” award in 2004, a year before the corruption story broke. Otnay ootay ightbray, according to those who worked with him. Yet he was a hot fighter pilot.
Next genius theory, please?
Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=drboom][quote=surveyor]My proof lies in that his aility to fly a plane, pass the test and meet qualifications is proof of his intelligence. Those facts expose the lie that he is unintelligent.
[/quote]Randy Cunningham was a hell of a fighter pilot. He is one of only two American pilot aces in the Vietnam War.
He also did some things a little later that fairly reek of arrogant stupidity.
Now what’s your point again?[/quote]
There’s a difference between intelligence and making mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes, intelligent or otherwise. That doesn’t make them unintelligent. It just makes them human.
[/quote]The nature and magnitude of Duke’s “mistakes” argue against being smart. If he was so bright he would have been a smidge less obvious, and I don’t think you can call a sustained pattern of corruption a “mistake”.
Anyway, House staffers voted Cunningham the prestigious “No Rocket Scientist” award in 2004, a year before the corruption story broke. Otnay ootay ightbray, according to those who worked with him. Yet he was a hot fighter pilot.
Next genius theory, please?
Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=drboom][quote=surveyor]My proof lies in that his aility to fly a plane, pass the test and meet qualifications is proof of his intelligence. Those facts expose the lie that he is unintelligent.
[/quote]Randy Cunningham was a hell of a fighter pilot. He is one of only two American pilot aces in the Vietnam War.
He also did some things a little later that fairly reek of arrogant stupidity.
Now what’s your point again?[/quote]
There’s a difference between intelligence and making mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes, intelligent or otherwise. That doesn’t make them unintelligent. It just makes them human.
[/quote]The nature and magnitude of Duke’s “mistakes” argue against being smart. If he was so bright he would have been a smidge less obvious, and I don’t think you can call a sustained pattern of corruption a “mistake”.
Anyway, House staffers voted Cunningham the prestigious “No Rocket Scientist” award in 2004, a year before the corruption story broke. Otnay ootay ightbray, according to those who worked with him. Yet he was a hot fighter pilot.
Next genius theory, please?
Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=drboom][quote=surveyor]My proof lies in that his aility to fly a plane, pass the test and meet qualifications is proof of his intelligence. Those facts expose the lie that he is unintelligent.
[/quote]Randy Cunningham was a hell of a fighter pilot. He is one of only two American pilot aces in the Vietnam War.
He also did some things a little later that fairly reek of arrogant stupidity.
Now what’s your point again?[/quote]
There’s a difference between intelligence and making mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes, intelligent or otherwise. That doesn’t make them unintelligent. It just makes them human.
[/quote]The nature and magnitude of Duke’s “mistakes” argue against being smart. If he was so bright he would have been a smidge less obvious, and I don’t think you can call a sustained pattern of corruption a “mistake”.
Anyway, House staffers voted Cunningham the prestigious “No Rocket Scientist” award in 2004, a year before the corruption story broke. Otnay ootay ightbray, according to those who worked with him. Yet he was a hot fighter pilot.
Next genius theory, please?
Participant[quote=EconProf]
Another observation about the Bush vs. Obama contest: Obama is charismatic and masterful as a speaker, while Bush talks like a hick. Many people can’t get past appearances in our American Idol culture, to Bush’s disadvantage. I suspect history will treat him more kindly than today’s chattering classes. [/quote]I dunno. LBJ arguably did more to advance civil rights than any president except Lincoln, but his guns and butter approach along with a bare-knuckled political M.O. doesn’t play too well these days.
If history is going to be kind to Bush, historians first need something to be kind to him for. Carter was a hapless victim of circumstance (so the story goes) and went on to win a Nobel Peace Prize. Reagan had a lot of buffoons in his cabinet (Haig, Watt, Meese, etc.), but he used his boundless charisma to get America out of its funk and “win” the Cold War. Bush Sr. had Desert Storm and, for a president, fairly obvious integrity. Clinton had an economic boom, welfare reform, and is a sympathetic character due to the vast right wing conspiracy’s impeachment.
Even Nixon had China and the various Cold War machinations of Dr. Strangelove, er, Kissinger.
I can’t point to anything similar for Bush other than his finest hour in the immediate aftermath of September 11th when he stood on a pile of rubble in NYC and let it all hang out. That’s better than anything Ford could point to, but I don’t know if it results in enough historical brownie points to rank above, say, Taft.
Participant[quote=EconProf]
Another observation about the Bush vs. Obama contest: Obama is charismatic and masterful as a speaker, while Bush talks like a hick. Many people can’t get past appearances in our American Idol culture, to Bush’s disadvantage. I suspect history will treat him more kindly than today’s chattering classes. [/quote]I dunno. LBJ arguably did more to advance civil rights than any president except Lincoln, but his guns and butter approach along with a bare-knuckled political M.O. doesn’t play too well these days.
If history is going to be kind to Bush, historians first need something to be kind to him for. Carter was a hapless victim of circumstance (so the story goes) and went on to win a Nobel Peace Prize. Reagan had a lot of buffoons in his cabinet (Haig, Watt, Meese, etc.), but he used his boundless charisma to get America out of its funk and “win” the Cold War. Bush Sr. had Desert Storm and, for a president, fairly obvious integrity. Clinton had an economic boom, welfare reform, and is a sympathetic character due to the vast right wing conspiracy’s impeachment.
Even Nixon had China and the various Cold War machinations of Dr. Strangelove, er, Kissinger.
I can’t point to anything similar for Bush other than his finest hour in the immediate aftermath of September 11th when he stood on a pile of rubble in NYC and let it all hang out. That’s better than anything Ford could point to, but I don’t know if it results in enough historical brownie points to rank above, say, Taft.
Participant[quote=EconProf]
Another observation about the Bush vs. Obama contest: Obama is charismatic and masterful as a speaker, while Bush talks like a hick. Many people can’t get past appearances in our American Idol culture, to Bush’s disadvantage. I suspect history will treat him more kindly than today’s chattering classes. [/quote]I dunno. LBJ arguably did more to advance civil rights than any president except Lincoln, but his guns and butter approach along with a bare-knuckled political M.O. doesn’t play too well these days.
If history is going to be kind to Bush, historians first need something to be kind to him for. Carter was a hapless victim of circumstance (so the story goes) and went on to win a Nobel Peace Prize. Reagan had a lot of buffoons in his cabinet (Haig, Watt, Meese, etc.), but he used his boundless charisma to get America out of its funk and “win” the Cold War. Bush Sr. had Desert Storm and, for a president, fairly obvious integrity. Clinton had an economic boom, welfare reform, and is a sympathetic character due to the vast right wing conspiracy’s impeachment.
Even Nixon had China and the various Cold War machinations of Dr. Strangelove, er, Kissinger.
I can’t point to anything similar for Bush other than his finest hour in the immediate aftermath of September 11th when he stood on a pile of rubble in NYC and let it all hang out. That’s better than anything Ford could point to, but I don’t know if it results in enough historical brownie points to rank above, say, Taft.
-
AuthorPosts
