Jump to content

Debates


MichaelWeston

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1350051413' post='1169268']
I'd be careful complaining about cronyism, especially if you are a Republican. That would kind of be like a kettle complaining about it's disobedient lid.

John Quincy Adams is one of my favorite Americans. Hands down, probably in the top two or three when it comes to being a moral statesman. But he was an ineffective president. Why? Here is Agar's take, pg. 228, [u]Price of Union[/u].
[/quote]

No doubt nepotism is a mainstay in politics, but there is a difference in appointing friends and associates into positions, and instead creating positions for them. What makes it worse, is that some of these positions report directly to Obama. Like Glen Beck says, that's against the checks and balances system that was put in place by the founders of the country.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1350051811' post='1169271']
No doubt nepotism is a mainstay in politics, but there is a difference in appointing friends and associates into positions, and instead creating positions for them. What makes it worse, is that some of these positions report directly to Obama. Like Glen Beck says, that's against the checks and balances system that was put in place by the founders of the country.
[/quote]

This is surreal. It reminds me of an imaginary outtake from the movie Young Frankenstein, where Gene Wilder asks Peter Boyle what he is doing with the peanut butter. Boyle's exquisitely logical reply was that he intended to slather said peanut butter on the top of a golden crisp Ritz cracker.

Checks and balances had nothing to do with cronyism, or even nepotism--which is to do with family members and not friends and associates. And perhaps instead of relying on Glen[b]N[/b] Beck as source you might consider citing Max Farrand, or even James Madison on the issue, for credibility's sake. Because Beck is possibly correct in this instance, but he has tainted himself far too often on other issues to be taken with more than a grain of salt.

That said, is there patronage, etc... in US politics? Of course. Politics is a mashup of elegant philosophy and knuckle-busting fights. In fact, it was a series of knuckle-busting fights which led to the development of checks and balances. Everybody back then deplored "factions"--and then those very same people went out and created some.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1350053869' post='1169279']
This is surreal. It reminds me of an imaginary outtake from the movie Young Frankenstein, where Gene Wilder asks Peter Boyle what he is doing with the peanut butter. Boyle's exquisitely logical reply was that he intended to slather said peanut butter on the top of a golden crisp Ritz cracker.

Checks and balances had nothing to do with cronyism, or even nepotism--which is to do with family members and not friends and associates. And perhaps instead of relying on Glen[b]N[/b] Beck as source you might consider citing Max Farrand, or even James Madison on the issue, for credibility's sake. Because Beck is possibly correct in this instance, but he has tainted himself far too often on other issues to be taken with more than a grain of salt.

That said, is there patronage, etc... in US politics? Of course. Politics is a mashup of elegant philosophy and knuckle-busting fights. In fact, it was a series of knuckle-busting fights which led to the development of checks and balances. Everybody back then deplored "factions"--and then those very same people went out and created some.
[/quote]

So you just told me Glenn (I get the hint) Beck isn't a reliable source, but he is probably right on this matter. Nepotism, patronage, whatever you want to call it, Obama surrounded himself not with the best people, but people who have ties to him some way or another. In some instances, said people, have a loose relation to what they are chosen to cover. In the case of his Muslim Czar, she was a Fundamentalist, versus someone that should be unbiased.

These just aren't the old days where if someone had a grief with a fellow politician they could challenge them to a duel and do away with their competition altogether, legally. Would Alexander Hamilton gotten his national bank, or even a chance in the White House? Who knows, Aaron Burr put that to rest a long time ago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you on this: many of Obama's choices for key positions were either not up to the task or insiders. It's particularly telling on the economic side. But all admins select their own crew to man the oars, for better or worse.

BTW, Hamilton [i]did[/i] get his bank, and Burr got his bank, too--in the guise of a water company. But I'm not really sure what Burr's murder of Hamilton has to do with all this--unless we are talking about "The Ultimate Debate Where Winner Takes All!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1350055502' post='1169291']
I agree with you on this: many of Obama's choices for key positions were either not up to the task or insiders. It's particularly telling on the economic side. But all admins select their own crew to man the oars, for better or worse.

BTW, Hamilton [i]did[/i] get his bank, and Burr got his bank, too--in the guise of a water company. But I'm not really sure what Burr's murder of Hamilton has to do with all this--unless we are talking about "The Ultimate Debate Where Winner Takes All!"
[/quote]

The point of Hamilton and Burr was that if someone thought someone didn't deserve their position, they could do something about it. They had to REALLY feel it though, feel it enough to risk their life for it, which back then a lot of the politicians were that passionate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1350055502' post='1169291']
I agree with you on this: many of Obama's choices for key positions were either not up to the task or insiders. [color=#ff0000]It's particularly telling on the economic side. [/color]But all admins select their own crew to man the oars, for better or worse.

BTW, Hamilton [i]did[/i] get his bank, and Burr got his bank, too--in the guise of a water company. But I'm not really sure what Burr's murder of Hamilton has to do with all this--unless we are talking about "The Ultimate Debate Where Winner Takes All!"
[/quote]


*cough* Summers and Giethner. *cough*
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1350049233' post='1169250']
Ryan wins the frat boy vote. Biden wins the senile senior citizen vote.

Here's the election in a nutshell for me:

GWB is out in the neighborhood walking his dog. No leash. The dog shits on lawns all over the place. Big piles of oozing, smelly poop. Obama goes out to clean it up. Does a half-ass job.

Who finishes the cleanup? The folks who want to once again walk the dog without a leash? Or the folks who want to clean things up, but are not very good at it?

Pick your poison.
[/quote]

Homer - do you really think this administration has even done a half-assed job of cleaning it up? By the looks of it, they've brought another 2-3 dogs to the dog walk and have them all hunching up crapping on the lawn too.

And, together, GWB and Obama are flipping you the bird as you glare at them out your picture window.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1350049107' post='1169248']
saw this poll as well, apparently the CNN poll is of all voters where the CBS one was of undecided
[/quote]

Surprised me that you didn't list both of them... you know in the interests of full disclosure. Especially considering both polls had %'s of dems, repubs, and undecides included... with actually the CNN poll have the closest % of all three groups.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1350065367' post='1169362']
Surprised me that you didn't list both of them... you know in the interests of full disclosure. Especially considering both polls had %'s of dems, repubs, and undecides included... with actually the CNN poll have the closest % of all three groups.
[/quote]

Didnt see the 2nd till after I went to bed and you posted it.

But if you want full disclosure I like Lew's idea about duels and would like to see Paul Ryan engaged in a one sided one. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1350055502' post='1169291']
I agree with you on this: many of Obama's choices for key positions were either not up to the task or insiders. It's particularly telling on the economic side. [b]But all admins select their own crew to man the oars[/b], for better or worse.

BTW, Hamilton [i]did[/i] get his bank, and Burr got his bank, too--in the guise of a water company. But I'm not really sure what Burr's murder of Hamilton has to do with all this--unless we are talking about "The Ultimate Debate Where Winner Takes All!"
[/quote]

True... and its a shame. Don't know the best answer to resolve it but it'd be nice if admins had to actually pick people that had qualifications in the departments they're being appointed to. On a whim to a friend, you have a lot of policy, economic, foreign, etc. swayed by people that may not be suited to the task. Adding to Jamie's list... Rumsfeld comes to mind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1350065403' post='1169364']
Didnt see the 2nd till after I went to bed and you posted it.

But if you want full disclosure I like Lew's idea about duels and would like to see Paul Ryan engaged in a one sided one. ;)
[/quote]

I liked someone's idea of bullshit monitors or whatever that could call each candidate out, as they're spewing the crap, and state what they're lying or "misleading" the viewers about and how exactly they're cooking the figures to fit their narrative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1350065664' post='1169370']
I liked someone's idea of bullshit monitors or whatever that could call each candidate out, as they're spewing the crap, and state what they're lying or "misleading" the viewers about and how exactly they're cooking the figures to fit their narrative.
[/quote]

With that in mind I present you the 2016 Debates....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQFEY9RIRJA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1350065367' post='1169362']
Surprised me that you didn't list both of them... you know in the interests of full disclosure. Especially considering both polls had %'s of dems, repubs, and undecides included... with actually the CNN poll have the closest % of all three groups.
[/quote]

Especially considering when you read the fine print of the CBS poll that I posted on a previous post...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='T-Dub' timestamp='1350075518' post='1169438']
Lew, my man, you're talking about Glenn Beck and pistol duels.

Your reality check just bounced.
[/quote]

My bad, were you blinded by the truth? I could maybe go find someone to write it out in braille and send it to you in the mail.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1350055714' post='1169293']
The point of Hamilton and Burr was that if someone thought someone didn't deserve their position, they could do something about it. They had to REALLY feel it though, feel it enough to risk their life for it, which back then a lot of the politicians were that passionate.
[/quote]
That's not why they duelled.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1350065251' post='1169359']
Homer - do you really think this administration has even done a half-assed job of cleaning it up? By the looks of it, they've brought another 2-3 dogs to the dog walk and have them all hunching up crapping on the lawn too.

And, together, GWB and Obama are flipping you the bird as you glare at them out your picture window.
[/quote]
You've got to work on the cynicism, Vol. It's not coming through clear enough!

I suppose that it depends on one's preferences. For me, it's a case where the Obama crew hasn't gone far enough. Others view it differently.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1350088006' post='1169465']
That's not why they duelled.
[/quote]

I know, it was because Burr blamed Hamilton on him losing out to Jefferson in a Presidential run-off, and because even after that he heard Hamilton had mud slinging behind his back.

The only reason I mentioned duels was because it would be the ultimate veto to use in situations like the President appointing a Czar who does not have the qualifications for the job. Could you imagine how many duels there would be in Washington, if they had one every time a person insulted someone's integrity? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1350065544' post='1169367']
True... and its a shame. Don't know the best answer to resolve it but it'd be nice if admins had to actually pick people that had qualifications in the departments they're being appointed to. On a whim to a friend, you have a lot of policy, economic, foreign, etc. swayed by people that may not be suited to the task. Adding to Jamie's list... Rumsfeld comes to mind.
[/quote]

But they do pick the folks that they believe have the kinds of qualifications required. Let's not be stupid about this. Each party has its bench of experts in all the policy areas. Rumsfeld was qualified to do national security stuff by Republican lights.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='T-Dub' timestamp='1350088465' post='1169472']
Truth? I thought we were talking about Glenn Beck.
[/quote]

Look it is what it is. I don't care if it comes out of Jennifer Gardner's mouth, I don't care if it comes out of Rev. Jesse Jackson's mouth, I don't care if Abraham Lincoln comes back as a zombie and it comes out of HIS mouth, it's the truth. Try to spin it however you want, but in the end not only will you look like a fool, but you'll be wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...