Olbermann is really mad!!
- Thread starter WINSTON THE WOLF
- Start date
LoneStranger
New member
As to the question of History judging and some pointing to current events as being the answer I would suggest that you go back and look at the ratings of Truman.
There is an old joke about "Time heals all wounds and Time also wounds all heels." I would suggest that making judgements at this time about the full effect of "Dubya" could be considered premature. As time has come to reveal that Truman, for all his faults and failures, was actually a better president than was thought at the time it can be noted that Time is slowly revealing that Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, and others have a lot of strange characters in their woodpiles. See, I didn't have to use the racially derogatory term that is usually used for that cliche.
The problem with most MSM types and numerous political types is that they cannot use the English language very well. That they are hampered by a necessity to mislead and misconstrue for "Political Correctness" and to follow "The Party Line" should not excuse their failure's.
The desire to make politics strictly a "Cult of Personality" with no required explanations or expounding on the issues of the situation means that those in opposition cannot talk beyond the personality. This leaves them and those who listen to them flailing in the winds of change.
The hardest part of discussion and dissent is trying to find where to start so that those willing to listen have some idea of where to start.
Lastly I remember my one Grandfather, muleskinner in the pre-WWI Field Artillery, saying something along the line of "You don't just cuss someone out, but you should be able to discuss them in a manner they will remember."
There is an old joke about "Time heals all wounds and Time also wounds all heels." I would suggest that making judgements at this time about the full effect of "Dubya" could be considered premature. As time has come to reveal that Truman, for all his faults and failures, was actually a better president than was thought at the time it can be noted that Time is slowly revealing that Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, and others have a lot of strange characters in their woodpiles. See, I didn't have to use the racially derogatory term that is usually used for that cliche.
The problem with most MSM types and numerous political types is that they cannot use the English language very well. That they are hampered by a necessity to mislead and misconstrue for "Political Correctness" and to follow "The Party Line" should not excuse their failure's.
The desire to make politics strictly a "Cult of Personality" with no required explanations or expounding on the issues of the situation means that those in opposition cannot talk beyond the personality. This leaves them and those who listen to them flailing in the winds of change.
The hardest part of discussion and dissent is trying to find where to start so that those willing to listen have some idea of where to start.
Lastly I remember my one Grandfather, muleskinner in the pre-WWI Field Artillery, saying something along the line of "You don't just cuss someone out, but you should be able to discuss them in a manner they will remember."
Garand Illusion
New member
Well ... yeah ... but the final word will require some years to pass. The electorate has certainly punished the GOP thus far, and may continue to do so the next election and the one after that. But eventually, like in 20 years, we'll have the historical perspective to KNOW what the real effect is.
And if the effect of this nasty little war was to stabilize the middle east, throw back islamic terrorism, and stabilize oil product and thus the world economy ... it will have been worth it.
It doesn't look very certain right now that will be the outcome, but again ... only history will decide that.
Olbermann was on such a rant that it was difficult to pick out his points.
But yes ... I disagree with the finality in which Olbermann passes judgement. Like has been said history will make the final judgement. And while things are looking bad, that judgement has not yet been made.
If you concede that then you already know what the "real effect" is. A few Democratic terms will undo everything you think might have been positive.
How many years did it take to pass judgement on Carter? Did you wait 20 years to declare Clinton a bad president?
This argument is weak.
Let me clarify then. Bush was out there agitating for war against Iran on the grounds of their nuclear enrichment program even though he had a NIE on his desk stating that Iran had ended their weapons research years earlier.
Do you disagree with that statement of fact?
So many people assume McCain will govern differently than Obama/Hillary, but I don't expect that is true. He has spent a lot of political capital by courting favor with democrats while pissing off conservatives. Now that he is running for pres, he has suddenly found his conservative roots??? I believe that as much as I believe Hillary is pro-gun.
As for McCain the conservative, I hope people realize that he is pro-amnesty and he actually believes that global warming is real. In addition, he wants to tax Americans to pay for global warming. If he signs the Kyoto treaty or a similar global treaty with other nations that are fighting the phantom called global warming, it will mean that some of our tax dollars will be paid to a world wide entity created by the Kyoto treaty to "punish" countries that use too much fossil fuels.
In short, John McCain is a globalist first and an American second... just as Obama and Hillary are.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjA0NDgzNjBlYTQ3YWZlZDFlYWZiOTFhNTRlZTM5YzU=
This type of garbage, spewed out on national tv, is part of the reason no one has any respect anymore. It used to be the norm for the press to show some decency, decorum, and respect when speaking to or about the president. It was common sense, and common courtesy, not to bad mouth america for the world at large to hear. Media puking forth this type of disrespectful crap just shows a lack of common journalistic courtesy.
Some things just NEEDN'T be said, reguardless of our right to say them.
Some things just NEEDN'T be said, reguardless of our right to say them.
Didn't mean to imply that you did. I realize your position is not reverse of mine, I was using the text of your comment to continue on that topic... that's all.
Back to the original premise of the article.... how will Bush be judged by history... It is my opinion that he will be judged by many individual people who care to make a judgement, and their will be various beliefs in that regard. Those people will pass their beliefs down to their younger family members, etc. In addition, the education system will teach children of future generations from books written by so-called historians who will have power to put their "opinions" about Bush43 in these books. Thus, the people of the future will judge Bush based on these "opinions" of those in power at the time. If those in power agreed with Bush, he will be described as benevolent. If those in power are in opposition to Bush (politically, ideologically), then he will be looked at as a terrible president.
As for me, I voted for Bush twice because I am a Conservative and who else was there to vote for that was not just awful (Gore, Kerry). However, I knew that by 2004, Bush was not a conservative. He voted too many times for things that seemed to be liberal to me. He never vetoed a single spending bill, at least not until about 2006, I think. Anyway, he has several positions that I do not think are conservative and I teach my children that he had a lot of potential, but he chose a path of trying to get along with liberals, which meant that he sacrificed his conservative principles in order to win approval from those who hate him and what he believes. I never recommend trying to win favor from your enemies. I recommend defeating them instead. Bush did not do that (politically speaking), IMO.
BoringAccountant
New member
Ok, so what does YOUR party hope to accomplish this election? More of the same ol same ol...the libertarian who runs this election may very well be a great guy, but will not have a snowball's chance. I find it odd that the ones who complain the loudest about the gubermint, the President, and politics in general are the ones who support a party who never has a chance to make a positive difference. Now, you want to talk problems with the Republican party, go right ahead, I will not argue that, but they are 'better than the alternatives'.
Thats great, I wish more would do the same and hopefully years from now, the general election may see one of y'all running a great campaign, but until then, its not this election, the MSM, the general public, and a whopping HUGE majority of voters have decided that its up to one of three candidates to win, Obama, Clinton, or McCain.
Ok, you take that route, I will take the other. I am working, like a lot of other Conservative Republicans I know that are not happy with the choice, not happy with how GW turned out, etc. about the R party to turn them around. Again, you feel content when you vote your conscience for a party that hasnt a chance, I will again hold my nose and vote.
I don't know what the real effect is, no one does. Hence the actions need to cease, things need to be reviewed, then history makes that decision whether he was a good President or not.
Exactly what I am saying, I would be on the dissenters side of saying GW was a great President right now, but then again, none of us know the full extent of what will happen over the next year, 10 years, 20 years, based on the decisions he has made. I will be fully ready to eat crow when it comes out he may not have been so bad.
Garand Illusion
New member
As a member of the electorate I can and do judge George Bush for the short term. I judged and then voted for him in 2000 and again in 2004. And if faced with him vs. Hillary/Obama would vote for him again.
But as to how W will eventually be remembered, we don't have a choice as to choose the time frame. He has set many things in motion, and the final results of those will take a couple of decades to filter the information and figure out, irregardless of short term consequences.
John Adams, a great man of the revolution, did many unpopular things as president. So have many other presidents, some of which handed power to the other party with short term negatives.
I disagree that it's a statement of fact.
Of the many reports W had, one that came into the public limelight made this claim. From the discussion that followed it was clear that there were political motivations behind this report, and many others that disputed it. And I would say statements from the Iranian prez disputed it as well -- it's clear they want to be a nuclear power.
The democrats and Bush haters jumped on this report, as they would rather come to power/refute George W. than protect Americans.
So once again ... history will judge. If this politically motivated report stops W from taking action, and the result is that in 2011 Chicago and NYC go up in an atomic mushroom cloud, we will wish we had all had the intelligence to follow the prophetic leadership of George W. Bush, and come to recognize he was a truly great man for his time that some simply lacked the foresight and intelligence to listen to.
If you live long enough to see the George W. Bush monument in D.C. towering over the washington memorial, and the GW Bush face on Mount Rushmore, you'll understand what I mean.
Last edited: