B-Man Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 How Bad Was the last Republican Administration? Tell me Park, considering the vacuousness of your threads and posts, is that why you spell your name backwards ? .
Doc Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 I figured that everyone enjoys a little Three Amigos and Princess Bride before lunch. The term you're looking for is non-interventionist. Isolationist applies to economic policy as well as military policy. That's what I thought.
CosmicBills Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 And if George Washington had been president when 9/11 happened and was forced to take actions afterwards, or if he were forced to deal with the economic calamity that ensued, due to the slowdown of the world economy, he wouldn't be viewed highly either. The shrinking of the world in relation to events has changed our viewpoint of our leaders dramatically- it is a far more complicated job. While your last point is excellent, I disagree with your theory about Washington. Yes, the world has changed. Yes, our political system has changed. Yes, we've become more divisive and combative with regards to our political discourse. But true leaders still exist. Men of honor who put the nation ahead of themselves. Washington was one such man. Had he been in the driver's seat, I honestly believe things would have been different. For one thing, we wouldn't have gone into Iraq. For another, Washington wouldn't have squandered the national unity we experienced in the early hours after that terrible day. The failure to unite the country in the wake of 9/11 was Bush's biggest failure in my opinion. And he had a lot of failures. What wouldn't have happened had a true leader the likes of Washington been in charge. Sadly, neither of the choices for this coming election are leaders either. It's just more of the same drek.
Adam Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 While your last point is excellent, I disagree with your theory about Washington. Yes, the world has changed. Yes, our political system has changed. Yes, we've become more divisive and combative with regards to our political discourse. But true leaders still exist. Men of honor who put the nation ahead of themselves. Washington was one such man. Had he been in the driver's seat, I honestly believe things would have been different. For one thing, we wouldn't have gone into Iraq. For another, Washington wouldn't have squandered the national unity we experienced in the early hours after that terrible day. The failure to unite the country in the wake of 9/11 was Bush's biggest failure in my opinion. And he had a lot of failures. What wouldn't have happened had a true leader the likes of Washington been in charge. Sadly, neither of the choices for this coming election are leaders either. It's just more of the same drek. George Washington probably would be better than either of the named presidents, but with so much more to do, than there was in his day, there still would have been problems. I think the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent economic decline would have led to him being demonized. Then, many would go after him if we do intervene in other countries, while other would if he doesn't intervene. That was a much simpler time- before the industrial and technological revolutions and the nations of the world were a lot more isolated.
meazza Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 Had he been in the driver's seat, I honestly believe things would have been different. For one thing, we wouldn't have gone into Iraq. For another, Washington wouldn't have squandered the national unity we experienced in the early hours after that terrible day. The failure to unite the country in the wake of 9/11 was Bush's biggest failure in my opinion. And he had a lot of failures. What wouldn't have happened had a true leader the likes of Washington been in charge. Sadly, neither of the choices for this coming election are leaders either. It's just more of the same drek. People get the leaders they deserve.
CosmicBills Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) George Washington probably would be better than either of the named presidents, but with so much more to do, than there was in his day, there still would have been problems. I think the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent economic decline would have led to him being demonized. Then, many would go after him if we do intervene in other countries, while other would if he doesn't intervene. That was a much simpler time- before the industrial and technological revolutions and the nations of the world were a lot more isolated. You're not wrong at all... But I think people forget how united this nation was immediately following the attacks. Not just the nation, but the world rallied behind us. There was an opportunity there for real healing. For real action to be taken by our leaders that could have perhaps stemmed the tide of what was coming down the pipe. Instead, Bush and his opposition wasted that opportunity and divided this country in such a deep way that we're still spiraling downwards as a society. Waging two wars under false pretenses, the hijacking of the far right by religious extremists, and the piss poor leadership of the left who decided to spend more time vilifying the Bush administration than working to solve the problem were all the result of Bush's impotent leadership. It's what doomed the economy and hastened our descent into political savagery. The media played their role as well and we as a people ate it up with a spoon. I may be an idealist, but I'd like to believe that someone like Washington would have recognized the incredible opportunity that presented itself in the months following the attacks. But then again, that's what the people in power today want. They want us fighting with one another so they can keep robbing us blind. People get the leaders they deserve. A very cynical view... but sadly not incorrect. At least the past 20 years. I want to believe that it's not a fait accompli, but I'm not sure what it's going to take to change the course we're currently on as a nation. Edited July 23, 2012 by tgreg99
meazza Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 A very cynical view... but sadly not incorrect. At least the past 20 years. I want to believe that it's not a fait accompli, but I'm not sure what it's going to take to change the course we're currently on as a nation. Look at the level of discourse that is also enhanced by the 24 hour wall to wall news coverage and the social network revolution. It's sad when discussions are effectively broken down into keywords to match the attention span on the average person whether it be in America, Canada or Europe. I brought this up in another thread but one of my favorite discussion panels I've ever seen is Milton Friedman's Free to choose, not simply because I agree with him but because he invites the opposition to come on his series and challenge him without being rude, or simply pushing talking points. There is actual debate from both sides. That **** doesn't exist anymore.
Adam Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 Look at the level of discourse that is also enhanced by the 24 hour wall to wall news coverage and the social network revolution. It's sad when discussions are effectively broken down into keywords to match the attention span on the average person whether it be in America, Canada or Europe. I brought this up in another thread but one of my favorite discussion panels I've ever seen is Milton Friedman's Free to choose, not simply because I agree with him but because he invites the opposition to come on his series and challenge him without being rude, or simply pushing talking points. There is actual debate from both sides. That **** doesn't exist anymore. I know someone on the far left- when this person starts a sentence with "The Republicans", I usually cringe. I also cringe when the neocons talk about what America stands for, as if no other opinion can be valid.
CosmicBills Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 Look at the level of discourse that is also enhanced by the 24 hour wall to wall news coverage and the social network revolution. It's sad when discussions are effectively broken down into keywords to match the attention span on the average person whether it be in America, Canada or Europe. I brought this up in another thread but one of my favorite discussion panels I've ever seen is Milton Friedman's Free to choose, not simply because I agree with him but because he invites the opposition to come on his series and challenge him without being rude, or simply pushing talking points. There is actual debate from both sides. That **** doesn't exist anymore. 100% agree. It's sad. But what's sadder still is how few people actually realize this is happening. Sure, lots of people lament about it but then instantly go back to shouting at the heavens about nonsense. The media and social revolution certainly played their parts in this. Certainly the miserable string of "leaders" we've elected the past decade and change also shoulder a large chunk of the blame as well. But, like you, I find the failing falls squarely on the people themselves. Myself included.
meazza Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 100% agree. It's sad. But what's sadder still is how few people actually realize this is happening. Sure, lots of people lament about it but then instantly go back to shouting at the heavens about nonsense. The media and social revolution certainly played their parts in this. Certainly the miserable string of "leaders" we've elected the past decade and change also shoulder a large chunk of the blame as well. But, like you, I find the failing falls squarely on the people themselves. Myself included. There is still some silver lining. I frequent and lurk quite a few forums on different topics and this one seems to have some decent discussions that sometimes get hijacked but are still rather decent. Many forums are just awful.
Recommended Posts