Is the presidency permanently tainted?
- Thread starter LordOpie
- Start date
Yawn. We've heard this about every administration since Washington. **** happens.
Yes. It is a thankless job. I don't see a beloved president anytime in the future. Politics.....One big dung pit if you ask me.
Depends on what he does really. Dubya comes across as an idiot with his finger on the button whilst in the pocket of the rich and powerful leaders of the mighty US industrial behemoth.
And he seems to not give a flying f*** what the rest of the world thinks.
Wouldn't it be great if someone who is NOT a politician...not in it for the power, and prestige ran...and actually won...man that would take a ton of grassroots campaigning...but there's so many things that need to be fixed and done...sigh...
Growing up I had a mentor who spent a lot of his time grooming me to care and grooming me for politics...then I went and became an Intern for the State Department...
Learned my lesson...we'll do my lobbying for change on the local scene only now...change the world you care about...and make a difference there...avoid the rest of the political mucky muck if at all possible.
Growing up I had a mentor who spent a lot of his time grooming me to care and grooming me for politics...then I went and became an Intern for the State Department...
Learned my lesson...we'll do my lobbying for change on the local scene only now...change the world you care about...and make a difference there...avoid the rest of the political mucky muck if at all possible.
He was swell.
Except for the fact he ignored Hitler butchering Jews for three years...
FDR's political opponents weren't so much in love - the New Deal was hot topic, socialist undertones and all.
Yeah, I brought that up before, only to have DRB argue me into a corner and then whip me silly with my own shoe.Originally posted by ummbikes
He was swell.
Except for the fact he ignored Hitler butchering Jews for three years...
But just because he won doesn't mean I'm wrong, dammit!
Anyway, I think we all realize that it's impossible to please everyone. Someone is always going to dislike you. But I think it's a unique gift to garner the hatred of the majority.
The version of history of FDR we have in the UK is that he wanted to stop Hitler but was politically hamstrung by a nation that was reluctant to engage in European wars after WW1. He did assist the UK after all (at a price) prior to entering the war.Originally posted by ummbikes
He was swell.
Except for the fact he ignored Hitler butchering Jews for three years...
Of course perception inside a country and outside are rarely the same.
why should the US care what the rest of the world thinks? i know that i've posted way too much rhetoric on the qualities of my excellent neighbours to the south. its like the rest of the world is crying for the attention of the US because we all want it. in the end, we all act like little kids....
as for BUSH ruining the presidency..... i've been laughing every since he got into office. i was riding in DALLAS during the elections and watched CNN between biking excursions. i was LMAO, ROTFL, and snorting DR PEPPER outta my nose.... RICHARDSON BIKE MART (or whatever it was called) was fun to hang out in and do some bike work (oops, i lost focus).
anyway.... like MIKE MOORE said, fictitious president, fictitious war.... bush having a DADDY that was prez.... not to mention a whole lot of other scandals.... i'm sure JORGE DUBYA has done some good, yet nothing comes to mind in an instant.
i can think of only two people that i would have liked to see run the US: NADER and POWELL. its too bad that this will never happen.
actually.... can i name a third? SCHWARZENEGGER.
my point? a new prez is a new prez... if people listen to GEORGIE W come campaign time (actually LISTEN) and remember that ENERGY and ENRON are mutually exclusive, may they realise that the presidency may be better off filled by someone else.
other than that, i'm really looking forward the CANADIAN FEDERAL ELECTIONS.
as for BUSH ruining the presidency..... i've been laughing every since he got into office. i was riding in DALLAS during the elections and watched CNN between biking excursions. i was LMAO, ROTFL, and snorting DR PEPPER outta my nose.... RICHARDSON BIKE MART (or whatever it was called) was fun to hang out in and do some bike work (oops, i lost focus).
anyway.... like MIKE MOORE said, fictitious president, fictitious war.... bush having a DADDY that was prez.... not to mention a whole lot of other scandals.... i'm sure JORGE DUBYA has done some good, yet nothing comes to mind in an instant.
i can think of only two people that i would have liked to see run the US: NADER and POWELL. its too bad that this will never happen.
actually.... can i name a third? SCHWARZENEGGER.
my point? a new prez is a new prez... if people listen to GEORGIE W come campaign time (actually LISTEN) and remember that ENERGY and ENRON are mutually exclusive, may they realise that the presidency may be better off filled by someone else.
other than that, i'm really looking forward the CANADIAN FEDERAL ELECTIONS.
When is the next U.S. federal election?? I don't think Dubya's got a hope in hell of making it another term and for the sake of the world i hope he doesn't.
November 2004
How many wars can he start between now and then??
You said "tainted".
Thanks for the mental picture this morning.....I am still grinningWhip me silly with my own shoe........
Kinky.
I met a woman recently who'd be glad to help you with that. She was a professional dominatrix. She told my friend (within my earshot) that she wanted to take me home and dress me up. Trouble was she was a deeply unpleasant (if physically attractive) person. I didn't take her up on her offer.
Wierdest part was that it was at a fancy dress party and I was already dressed up.. What could she have meant?
LMAO!
We might have been seeing your avatar on the back of milk catrons (USA thing? missing kids end up on the back of milk cartons)
If I had a nickel for every time that's happened to me....word to the wise...check for the adam's apple. <tapping side of nose with index finger>
Tainted...
I've always found it kinda funny that the presidency is supposed to be somehow revered for some reason....And now it's all been ruined...
Oh king eh? Very noice.... And 'ow'd you get that? By exploitin' the workahs. By 'angin' on to outdated imperialist dogma, which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society...
Not sure why I added that last part... it just popped into my head...
I've always found it kinda funny that the presidency is supposed to be somehow revered for some reason....And now it's all been ruined...
Oh king eh? Very noice.... And 'ow'd you get that? By exploitin' the workahs. By 'angin' on to outdated imperialist dogma, which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society...
Not sure why I added that last part... it just popped into my head...
Wow, haven't posted here in awhile.... but the topic intrigues me.
Permanently taint the presidency... its all a matter of perspective. There are folks that feel that Clinton with his sexual follies brought disgrace to the office. There are folks that feel Bush has brought disgrace to the office with his war in Iraq and the subsequent handling of the occupation. And no matter in either case, there will always be a shadow on that President in their mind but with the election of a President that represents their thinking the office is back to its old glory.
The very nature of the office allows it to be sweep relatively clean every 4 to 8 years. That really isn't long enough to do any real long term damage.
Historically, I believe the only man to really do any permanent damage to the office of president (and I love to say this) is Thomas Jefferson. He was the first to bring partisan politics to the office of president. He saw the president as less the leader of the nation and more the leader of a political party. From that moment forward, this nation has been held hostage to petty politics far too often. Very few have been able to rise above that legacy.
I do believe that every President this nation has ever had has done what he thought was best. Some have just been more successful than others. I also don't think that they have acted with a "me first" attitude. Even Jefferson did his best, he was just saddled with a lack of vision to see (yeah I said Jefferson had a lack of vision) what the office of President truly could have been, eventhough he had two excellent predecessors to show him.
So in the end, I don't think that the office can be permanently tainted.
Permanently taint the presidency... its all a matter of perspective. There are folks that feel that Clinton with his sexual follies brought disgrace to the office. There are folks that feel Bush has brought disgrace to the office with his war in Iraq and the subsequent handling of the occupation. And no matter in either case, there will always be a shadow on that President in their mind but with the election of a President that represents their thinking the office is back to its old glory.
The very nature of the office allows it to be sweep relatively clean every 4 to 8 years. That really isn't long enough to do any real long term damage.
Historically, I believe the only man to really do any permanent damage to the office of president (and I love to say this) is Thomas Jefferson. He was the first to bring partisan politics to the office of president. He saw the president as less the leader of the nation and more the leader of a political party. From that moment forward, this nation has been held hostage to petty politics far too often. Very few have been able to rise above that legacy.
I do believe that every President this nation has ever had has done what he thought was best. Some have just been more successful than others. I also don't think that they have acted with a "me first" attitude. Even Jefferson did his best, he was just saddled with a lack of vision to see (yeah I said Jefferson had a lack of vision) what the office of President truly could have been, eventhough he had two excellent predecessors to show him.
So in the end, I don't think that the office can be permanently tainted.
Come on Ohio it wasn't like that, I'd never beat a man with his own shoe unless he owed me money.
Okay, what would you have done in his position to stop it from happening?Originally posted by ummbikes
He was swell.
Except for the fact he ignored Hitler butchering Jews for three years...
There is a difference between ignoring something and not being able to do anything about it.
I know I'm setting myself up for another sound beating, but I want to push this point a bit. My claims of "tainting the presidency" has little to do with the actual political slant of the current administration, and much more to do with a demonstration of absolute power of the executive branch that I'm not sure we've seen in modern history. I'm worried that it has undermined the credibility of our checks and balances system, as well as demonstrated to the rest of the world a lack of stability (for lack of a better word) one would normally expect from a republic. We have shown the world that we are nearly as capable of being a "rogue" nation, as the Iraqs and N Koreas, of the world.... all while having the strongest military on Earth.
I don't think people will soon forget, or stop fearing, that demonstration of power. Some people may see that as a positive... on most levels I do not.
wow.
that was really eloquent.
except for the part where you disregard the fact that we have done more than the next 4 countries combined for economic development, financial amnesty, debt forgiveness, pharmeceutical advances, civil rights (however rediculously played out), free trade, human rights (excepting the death penalty), higher education, engineering, this irreplaceable thing called the internet, the media (& free speech that one of us is torturing), agriculture, telecommunications, parks systems, training & research on all the aforementioned items...
so, foregoing all those instances, i reckon we're a rogue nation?!?!?! point to just one other nation that begins to approach us on all these items. You ever heard of a must-have invention/technology or medical breakthrough from a Muslim nation?
me neither.
moreover, i see it as necessary to the survival of our country, short of becoming a police state
Just keep patting yourself on the back and in 20 years you'll be wondering what the hell happened. There is a great big world out there outside the borders of the USA....
I wasn't disregarding anything. Those are entirely unrelated. NO ONE would ever credit any of those factors to the presidency or the executive branch, which is what we're discussing. I'm also discussing world opinion, not my own. I'm well aware of the good we've done.
Persia is the birthplace of civilization and was once the intellectual capital the world. That region has produced some of the finest art and architecture the world has ever known. Don't forget that. Also, I have no idea what this has to do with a discussion of our executive branch.
I don't. Before our recent flexing of muscle, I don't think anyone was questioning our power or legitimacy. We may have been slightly underestimated, but no one was under the illusion that we were anything but #1. Now people may question our power less, but our legitimacy MUCH more.
I agree the muslim producing anything statement was wrong of Stinkle.
Now on to other things.
The USA moved without international approval. The USA saw the inability of a governing body to do anything. Their inaction except to request more inspectors and in doing so feed time to Iraq is a gross failure on their part. The US action was by no means sudden and was a long time coming. The UN sat on their hands....powerless, unable to make a decision other than to let Iraq do what they wanted. Iraq had plenty of time to comply with UN resolutions. When Iraq refused the UN was locked in what to do....affraid to act.
I question the UN's ability to act at all more than I did before 9/11.
Thats a tough question. The thing Hitler had going for him was a a population whipped into a nationalistic frezy who really felt like Germany was going to recover from their financial situation.
Any economic sanctions we could have applied would have pushed Germany into an escaltion of their empire building and put us in the war sooner.
At the same time we were pushing hardcore embargos on Japan which some say (Howard Zinn the most) was the reason they attacked Pearl Harbor.
The point I was making is that FDR was a good leader, who did good things, who also knew Hitler was killing jews for three years before we enetered the war. To his credit we did inplement the Lend/Lease policys.
I'm not attacking FDR at all here, I realize it is easy to look back and analyze a sitiutaion and see other options. I was just pointing out some historical facts.
Damn it weve got the guns, weve got the money - we are our own approval committee. 
Lend/Lease was FRD's way of getting around congress who would not approve outright aid and didn't want the US to become involved in a European problem.
Again, this is not entirely related to the subject, although at least it's a tangent rather than completely random.
So in response, I would say I DO question the UN's ability to act somewhat more, but I also believe they WOULD have acted, if we had gone about things in a different way.
Keep in mind Japan was doing some really horrible stuff in Asia at that time. We sat and ignored that for a long time as well. In hindsight, it was almost good that Pearl Harbor got attacked.
Yep, Japan was spreading out their empire, they made the error of moving into Indonesia which at the time held some tin and rubber resources we coveted as a nation.
Not directly to you Ohio....I respect your opinion. I however have coworkers and friends that I will use as fuel to vent. That is not exactly fair to you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
They took 8 years to not act....how much time did they need?
A tangent to this thread yes but in all this USA done wrong, many people are remiss in aknowledging that the UN was unable to do anything before the USA went in relatively alone. I didn't see any progress with the way the UN handled things. That is part of my contention with all the people I talk to.
Them: "Oh the UN was doing stuff...."
Me: "OK tell me if any of it was working?"
Them: "Yeah well they were doing stuff.....
Them: "The US is doing the wrong thing......"
Me: "What should be done?"
Them: Well,......I don't know, but the US is doing the wrong thing...."
This finger pointing infuriates me.....give me a feasible alternative that wasn't tried. Would it have been successful? Obviously plenty of people know what shouldn't have been done, but have no real alternatives to impliment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To Ohio,
They would/were acting. But with no ability to back up their resolutions/sanctions/threats of future action. Saddam gleefully ignored the UN....and in reality why not? He had nothing to fear from them. Nothing in the 8 years or so after we allowed him to stay in power, that the UN did, had Saddam abiding by the resolutions (set forth to allow him to stay in power and save soldiers lives and money.)
i was merely taking issue with the connect-the-dots exercise as the U.S. playing the part of a rogue nation. However, i must parrot this: "Politics in our country is about money and power. End of story." - Charley Reese
gentlemen, please. A little intellectual honesty. I said before, and still stand by the observation, that we don't have a must-have invention/technology or medical breakthrough from a Muslim nation. Corrections to this are welcome. I'm not taking a shot at the people, but rather the gub'ments. Furthermore, I'm not talking about a buncha clay pots dug up in the Fertile Crescent. I'm talking about vaccinations for malaria & polio, rocket science, & other examples of Yankee ingenuity. BTW Rhino, i fully concur w/ your observations of the self-emasculated UN
nugget:
Advanced rocket science and the atomic bomb would have never been possible without Germans and European Jews don't forget that
There is no vaccination for Malaria. Otherwise I wouldn't have contracted it.
I'm still not clear what technological innovation has to do with "rogue nation"
Nazi Germany was pretty technologically advanced... the first Jet engine ring any bells? (and no I'm not comparing us to Nazi Germany. I'm just disproving whatever it is $tinkle is trying to claim)
I would contend that the UN didn't act for 8 years (I thought it was 11?) because no one pressured them to. But then we started pressuring them, you say. When we finally did start pressuring them, it was in the most strong-armed, arrogant, decietful manner I can imagine... and then we are somehow suprised that they wouldn't follow through on their resolutions and commit resources. Good diplomacy may also have failed in gthering true UN support, but we'll never know because we never came even close to trying.
Is this just random jingoistic flag-waving or have you done full research on the questions that you raise? I ask because I do not know whether what you say has any validity.
I would certainly question areas such as;
economic development
financial amnesty
debt forgiveness
civil rights
free trade
human rights
If you don't have the data to back these assertions up they do not belong in this debate.
And are rocket science and the atomic bomb such great things?