PDA

View Full Version : An historical Presidental quote



tompritchett
02-12-2007, 06:30 PM
I thought this would be applicable here considering the political nature several of the recent threads have taken.


"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -Teddy Roosevelt

Sgt_Pepper
02-12-2007, 06:51 PM
The longer version makes even more good points:

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else." -- Teddy Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

reb64
02-12-2007, 07:18 PM
I thought this would be applicable here considering the political nature several of the recent threads have taken.


two points here, 1st tedddy said say the truth...get it truth, not lies not name calling, not theories. 2nd he criticized the pres for being too wussy, he wanted war, wanted to go himself again with a unit, wanted more action and more support of our allies. Wilson was a racist and isolationist and had to be prodded into action. President Bush has none of these tendencies.

Trooper Graham
02-12-2007, 08:25 PM
To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.

-- Teddy Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

This should have been brought up four years ago when the Dixie Chicks did just that when in fact they were treated unjustly for speaking their criticism. I see recently they have been vindicated.

brown30741
02-12-2007, 08:38 PM
Getting yelled at for exercising your 1st Amendment rights should not get you a Grammy. If getting yelled gets me stuff, then I should have been given extra milk everyday in 3rd grade...

I am truly glad we are in a nation where it is patriotic (still in some circles) to constructively critize elected officals.

Reminds me of the old Cold War era joke:
A Soviet and an American were spouting off about how great their countries were. The American said, "The USA is so great and free that I can stand on the steps of the Capitol and yell 'the American President is a moron!'" The Soviet said, "So? What's the big deal? I can stand on the steps of the Kremlin and yell 'the American President is a moron!'"

CivilWarBuff1863
02-12-2007, 09:05 PM
I was called "Teddy" sometimes when I would go out drinking. Whenever I had my reenactment glasses on they'd say I'd look like Teddy Roosevelt. That was a totally weird feeling!

tompritchett
02-12-2007, 09:11 PM
I think that you missed the point. Too many of my party have publically stated that questioning the President's current policies and decisions is "emboldening the terrorists" and others have stated that such actions are supporting terrorism - a very dangerous accusation given the provisions in the Patriot Act and other legislation that authorizes the severe curtailing civil liberties of those to whom that label has been applied.

Yes, we must be truthful in our criticisms, something again my party has not always been good at doing, but we should be public in raising our concerns regardless of which party the President belongs to.

toptimlrd
02-12-2007, 10:37 PM
In rsponse to the Dixie Chicks. They had every right to say what they did even if it was in poor taste considering the venue and locality. The problem is they thought that envoking the first ammendment meant they also would not have to suffer any consequences of their exercise. They lost a number of fans and ended up hurting their career. As to getting an award, I guess they could melt down that little statue and try to recoup some of the lost revenue their mouths have caused. I think the Grammy may be worth a bit more than the Nobel peace prize with the real winners that have been chosen for it in recent years.

toptimlrd
02-12-2007, 10:42 PM
I think that you missed the point. Too many of my party have publically stated that questioning the President's current policies and decisions is "emboldening the terrorists" and others have stated that such actions are supporting terrorism - a very dangerous accusation given the provisions in the Patriot Act and other legislation that authorizes the severe curtailing civil liberties of those to whom that label has been applied.

Yes, we must be truthful in our criticisms, something again my party has not always been good at doing, but we should be public in raising our concerns regardless of which party the President belongs to.


Tom,

With all due respect, the Patriot Act has done less to curtail civil liberties than what has been done in past wars. There are no internment camps, no repealing of habeus corpus for US citizens, etc. I have yet to meet any American citizen who has been harmed by the Patriot Act.

Ohioreb1861
02-12-2007, 10:47 PM
Well, i'm glad hillary will turn this country around.

flattop32355
02-12-2007, 10:55 PM
Yes, we must be truthful in our criticisms, something again my party has not always been good at doing, but we should be public in raising our concerns regardless of which party the President belongs to.

I don't think either side has a monopoly on not being completely truthful in criticising the other side.

I do, however, see some important differences in to what extremes some members of the two parties will go to in spreading half-truths and outright untruths.

That makes a great difference in how I vote.

Ohioreb1861
02-12-2007, 11:05 PM
My thing in deciding on who to vote for is who has

the most believeable lies

does the least trash talking

Last wants to protect what we have left of our feedoms.

And wants to take care of our troops.

This is how I pick who I vot for.

Trooper Graham
02-12-2007, 11:11 PM
Well, i'm glad hillary will turn this country around.

I don't know about that. Bush has already screwed the veterans enough. I don't think Hillary can do much more damage unless she's president and Obama is Vice President. Both together might do more damage.

Ohioreb1861
02-12-2007, 11:15 PM
I was being quite sarcastic.

tompritchett
02-13-2007, 09:53 AM
Tom,

With all due respect, the Patriot Act has done less to curtail civil liberties than what has been done in past wars. There are no internment camps, no repealing of habeus corpus for US citizens, etc. I have yet to meet any American citizen who has been harmed by the Patriot Act.

I agree, with the exception of those few captured in direct support of terrorist activites, there has yet to be any repealing of habeus corpus and, while the contracts are in place for them, there have yet to be any interment camps built. I am just bothered that the mechanisms have been codified into law and that the only true protection of our liberties now is the character of the people in power rather than in the Constitution - the very condition our Founding Fathers never wanted to see.

I will grant Bush this much - he has not abused the powers that Congress has given him. But what about the next guy? Or if there is another attack on the scale of 9/11 or worse? And frankly, the idea of Cheney with these same powers, frightens the living h*ll out of me.

tompritchett
02-13-2007, 10:10 AM
Well, i'm glad hillary will turn this country around.

I know that you are being sarcastic but I am responding anyway to those in the N.E. that are actually Hillary supporters. While I personally think that Hillary has done a fairly respectful job as a Senator, I also think that there is almost no way that she could ever win as President - strictly because the negative baggage her name will bring throughout much of the center of the country. Essentially throughout the entire U.S , there will be no swing votes for her to win. Just because of her name and all the negative garbage that was brought up during her husband's presidency, almost everyone in the U.S. has already reached a hard opinion about her and everyone that had issues with her husband's presidency will mobilize to defeat her. IMHO, it will make the negative mobilization against Kerry look tame. Even the staunch Democrats in my family on the other side of the mountains will not vote for her. The Democratic party leadership needs to get off their fanny perpendiculars in DC and the two coasts and then travel though middle America and listen before they set up the self-destruction of their current hold over Congress with a Hillary victory in the primaries.

reb64
02-13-2007, 10:17 AM
This should have been brought up four years ago when the Dixie Chicks did just that when in fact they were treated unjustly for speaking their criticism. I see recently they have been vindicated.


the dixie chicks spoke ashamedly to a foreign press and they weren't vindicated, they were given grammies by liberals, the same people who gave grammies to ludicrous who used the n word dozens of times in the album, and to jimmie carter. ironically the country radio stations or music awards didn't honor the chicks, they aren't even country but got a country award at the grammies how out of touch. I haven't heard their songs here all year.

reb64
02-13-2007, 10:19 AM
I don't know about that. Bush has already screwed the veterans enough. I don't think Hillary can do much more damage unless she's president and Obama is Vice President. Both together might do more damage.


here in knasas veteran care is up, new clinics, new centers for returning soldiers, free eye surgery, I get seen and helped all the time, my pay went up. what the ehack are you talking about specifically.

Ohioreb1861
02-13-2007, 10:24 AM
I know that you are being sarcastic but I am responding anyway to those in the N.E. that are actually Hillary supporters. While I personally think that Hillary has done a fairly respectful job as a Senator, I also think that there is almost no way that she could ever win as President - strictly because the negative baggage her name will bring throughout much of the center of the country. Essentially throughout the entire U.S , there will be no swing votes for her to win. Just because of her name and all the negative garbage that was brought up during her husband's presidency, almost everyone in the U.S. has already reached a hard opinion about her and everyone that had issues with her husband's presidency will mobilize to defeat her. IMHO, it will make the negative mobilization against Kerry look tame. Even the staunch Democrats in my family on the other side of the mountains will not vote for her. The Democratic party leadership needs to get off their fanny perpendiculars in DC and the two coasts and then travel though middle America and listen before they set up the self-destruction of their current hold over Congress with a Hillary victory in the primaries.


Tom, I totally agree. I do think Hillary and nancy could do some real damage to this country and our Constitution. I believe it could be a real nightmare.

It honestly scares me.

toptimlrd
02-13-2007, 10:54 AM
I agree, with the exception of those few captured in direct support of terrorist activites, there has yet to be any repealing of habeus corpus and, while the contracts are in place for them, there have yet to be any interment camps built. I am just bothered that the mechanisms have been codified into law and that the only true protection of our liberties now is the character of the people in power rather than in the Constitution - the very condition our Founding Fathers never wanted to see.

I will grant Bush this much - he has not abused the powers that Congress has given him. But what about the next guy? Or if there is another attack on the scale of 9/11 or worse? And frankly, the idea of Cheney with these same powers, frightens the living h*ll out of me.

Ah constitutional debates, this I can appreciate instead of the conserative / liberal shots being fired lately around here.

Tom, I still have faith in the balance of power and the checks and balances built into the Constitution. If the Patriot Act (or any act or law for that matter) were to be abused by any branch it would be incumbent upon the other two to reign in the offending arm of government. For anyone, especially the President to abuse his power in this day and age would be near impossible. Yes it has happened in the past when the access to information was limited and it was much easier to work the entire population into a frenzy (i/e Japanese internment camps) I think and believe it would be much harder with the rapid delivery of information. It's a fine line between protecting our rights a citizes and defending us from enemy combatants, especially when the enemy may also be a citizen in this case where the enemy does not wear a uniform or profess loyaly to any flag or country.

vamick
02-13-2007, 11:14 AM
This should have been brought up four years ago when the Dixie Chicks did just that when in fact they were treated unjustly for speaking their criticism. I see recently they have been vindicated.

I think that goes to show that the Dixie Chicks were smarter and more savvy then at least 80% of the 'American public'!:confused: ...but then hey when ya talk to some of that 'public' its no surprise:p folks sure get confused between 'alliegence' and 'servertude', between 'patriotism' and 'fascism'!!!!!

vamick
02-13-2007, 11:19 AM
Tom,

With all due respect, the Patriot Act has done less to curtail civil liberties than what has been done in past wars. There are no internment camps, no repealing of habeus corpus for US citizens, etc. I have yet to meet any American citizen who has been harmed by the Patriot Act.

And I hope neither of us ever will!......but stay tuned:eek:

Trooper Graham
02-13-2007, 11:31 AM
here in knasas veteran care is up, new clinics, new centers for returning soldiers, free eye surgery, I get seen and helped all the time, my pay went up. what the ehack are you talking about specifically.

Obama has voted down 23 veteran Bills since being in Washington. Gov Tallant of Mo had voted down 21 and he lost his seat last year.
I'm 100% in priority group 1 and I've been waiting for an appointment for eight months now. There are no health providers available because there is no money to hire them. If you have some new clinics in Kansas your lucky. We have some new ones in Illinois too but they are a drop in the bucket. These past few years has caused the largest increase in need for VA care since Vietnam. Just like Bagdad the government, even though warned, can't see past their own noses.

Trooper Graham
02-13-2007, 11:34 AM
I think that goes to show that the Dixie Chicks were smarter and more savvy then at least 80% of the 'American public'!:confused: ...but then hey when ya talk to some of that 'public' its no surprise:p folks sure get confused between 'alliegence' and 'servertude', between 'patriotism' and 'fascism'!!!!!

I read on Yahoo News today that radio stations are still not playing their music.

TParker
02-13-2007, 01:00 PM
I know that you are being sarcastic but I am responding anyway to those in the N.E. that are actually Hillary supporters. While I personally think that Hillary has done a fairly respectful job as a Senator, I also think that there is almost no way that she could ever win as President - strictly because the negative baggage her name will bring throughout much of the center of the country. Essentially throughout the entire U.S , there will be no swing votes for her to win. Just because of her name and all the negative garbage that was brought up during her husband's presidency, almost everyone in the U.S. has already reached a hard opinion about her and everyone that had issues with her husband's presidency will mobilize to defeat her. IMHO, it will make the negative mobilization against Kerry look tame. Even the staunch Democrats in my family on the other side of the mountains will not vote for her. The Democratic party leadership needs to get off their fanny perpendiculars in DC and the two coasts and then travel though middle America and listen before they set up the self-destruction of their current hold over Congress with a Hillary victory in the primaries.

Mr. Pritchett, I share your analysis of Ms. Clinton, in that I too believe she will ultimately be unsuccessful in achieving the Presidency. At least I hope so, for the sake of the country. The division that would cause in the body politic will make the current heated rhetoric look tame. Here in New York, where "celebrity" has apparently become the only qualification necessary to become elected, there is no middle ground as far as she is concerned, you either love her or hate her. To extend that polarization to the entire country would, I fear, cause long term damage to our ability to debate and resolve political issues in a civilized manner. It already has here in this state.

Unfortunately, the primary process and the likely primary voters, on both sides, tend to select the candidates who are at the more extreme ends of their respective spectrums. The money Ms. Clinton has already raised and continues to rake in, the chits she has collected by sharing that money and her fundraising acumen with other candidates coast to coast, and the blindness of the media to anything other than her celebrity status will likely lead to her nomination. Whether the Democratic party has any way to prevent that, or is inclined to so act, is problematic. Should the Republicans manage to nominate a "centrist" candidate, their chances in the general election would appear excellent.

While your observation that she has done a "respectful" job a senator is your personal observation, my own personal observation (unfortunately from closer to the source) leads me to believe everything she has said or done since she became Senator has been carefully calculated, not genuine, and any "respectful" position she has taken was due to that calculation. She has only one agenda, her own.

road_apple1861
02-13-2007, 03:42 PM
I read on Yahoo News today that radio stations are still not playing their music.
They still arnt playing them up here in Michigan

Malingerer
02-13-2007, 03:51 PM
Not sure who they are, but after reading this discussion I'm going to go out and buy one of their CDs.

respects,
Peter Julius

bob 125th nysvi
02-13-2007, 04:10 PM
I think that you missed the point. Too many of my party have publically stated that questioning the President's current policies and decisions is "emboldening the terrorists" and others have stated that such actions are supporting terrorism - a very dangerous accusation given the provisions in the Patriot Act and other legislation that authorizes the severe curtailing civil liberties of those to whom that label has been applied.

Yes, we must be truthful in our criticisms, something again my party has not always been good at doing, but we should be public in raising our concerns regardless of which party the President belongs to.

with what people say and will certainly defend their right to say whatever they want.

However the right to say what you want is not a get 'out of jail free card' as to suffering the consequences from saying what you say.

Just to keep picking on the Dixie Chicks, they have the right to say Bush is an idiot and that they are embarassed (although I'd be surprised if they actually VOTED themselves) to be Americans. Radio stations have the right to not play their music, people have the right to not go to their concerts and promoters have the right to cancel their appearances if they can't sell enough seats and the music industry has the right to indulge it's liberal tendencies to give them grammies.

But then the music industry also hands out awards to people who write songs glorifing shooting cops and slapping around hos. so I have the right to consider music industry awards about as meaningful and important as Hitler's guarantees at Munich.

I have problems with what people DO or do not (as in inaction) not in what they say.

And I have a right to point out where people's argument are wrong or illogical and are just based a particular political persuasion (which happens far too often in both parties).

I once had an employee who announced he was going to vote. I asked him who he was going to vote for. He said the democrats (could have said rebulicans but he didn't). I asked who was on the ticket (it was municiple election and I didn't live in that municipality) and why he was voting for them. He said he didn't know but he was going to vote for them because they were democrats.

The unfortunate reality here in America is that you could run Stalin and the Democratic ticket against Hitler on the Republican ticket and they'd both draw votes from people who vote party line.

Scary very very scary.

I'll throw another quote at you but from Thomas Paine: 'Arguing with those who have renounced the use of logic is as useless as administering medicine to the dead.'

Much of the debates you reference had no logic, no historical prespective and no coherent alternate ideas just visceral responses based on like or dislike of the politician in question.

Again

Scary very scary.

bob 125th nysvi
02-13-2007, 04:30 PM
I know that you are being sarcastic but I am responding anyway to those in the N.E. that are actually Hillary supporters. While I personally think that Hillary has done a fairly respectful job as a Senator.

Can you please identify one, any, piece of legislation she has gotten passed? She's been promising to improve the econony in upstate NY since she was elected and unless you count Albany collecting and spending more taxes, we haven't seen any improvements.


, I also think that there is almost no way that she could ever win as President - strictly because the negative baggage her name will bring throughout much of the center of the country. Essentially throughout the entire U.S , there will be no swing votes for her to win. Just because of her name and all the negative garbage that was brought up during her husband's presidency, almost everyone in the U.S. has already reached a hard opinion about her and everyone that had issues with her husband's presidency will mobilize to defeat her. IMHO, it will make the negative mobilization against Kerry look tame. Even the staunch Democrats in my family on the other side of the mountains will not vote for her. The Democratic party leadership needs to get off their fanny perpendiculars in DC and the two coasts and then travel though middle America and listen before they set up the self-destruction of their current hold over Congress with a Hillary victory in the primaries.

I agree she can't get elected and I'll take this two steps further.

I think the moderate democrats would love to see her run and get pasted even if it means losing the White House for another 4 years just to finally be rid of the Clinton's once and for all.

And I think deep down inside Pelosi wants her out of the way too. Nancy loves being top dog and in no way wants to have to deal with a liberal woman in the Democratic Party who is more powerful than she is.

The Speaker of the House can be the most powerful position in the country (talk to Tip if you get to H@ll in the here after) and the nice thing about it is you're behind the throne not out where the marksmen can see you.

So the donkey power structure will be smiling to her face and sharpening their knives behind her back.

About her only chance is whom do the elephants have to run that will appeal to THEIR base and moderate voters at the same time?

For sheer theater however a Clinton/Rice presidential race can't be beat.

A white liberal southern woman against a black conservative woman who has international politicial experience, is a hardliner on terrorism and has actual national government experience?

Talking about knocking out all the traditional cards played against the other party.

If you're Democrat how do you say the the party has your interests in their heart to African-Americans when you launch negative attacks on a black woman candidate. How do oyu say your candidate has more EXPIRENCE than the other gal.

And if your the Republicans how do you say to the conservative right wing that we hear you and bleed your values and oh by the way we're running a black woman for president.

What a cat fight!

It would almost be worth the resulting chaos just to see it happen. Either it would be the worst attended election in American History or the amount of protest voting would be overwhelming in scope.

Might even want to Dan Rather back on TV just to see him turn red and breakup one more time on National TV.

toptimlrd
02-13-2007, 08:02 PM
For sheer theater however a Clinton/Rice presidential race can't be beat.

.


Now there is a race I could get behind. I have quite a bit of respect and admiration for Dr. Rice and I would vote for her in a heartbeat. Yep here's a southern very conservative white male that would cast his vote for an African American female any day of the week. Perhaps this is what the Republican party needs to get back on track as the party of Lincoln.

reb64
02-13-2007, 08:09 PM
Now there is a race I could get behind. I have quite a bit of respect and admiration for Dr. Rice and I would vote for her in a heartbeat. Yep here's a southern very conservative white male that would cast his vote for an African American female any day of the week. Perhaps this is what the Republican party needs to get back on track as the party of Lincoln.

How have they gotten off the track?

reb64
02-13-2007, 08:12 PM
[QUOTE=bob 125th nysvi]Can you please identify one, any, piece of legislation she has gotten passed? She's been promising to improve the econony in upstate NY since she was elected and unless you count Albany collecting and spending more taxes, we haven't seen any improvements.



A bumper sticker I saw while in Chicago said "if the north won how did we get Hillary?"

toptimlrd
02-13-2007, 08:16 PM
How have they gotten off the track?


In my opinion, way too much infighting and a reduced emphasis on conservative principles. One problem I do have with Bush (and if you read my earlier posts I am a strong supporter of his) is his propensity to spend and sign off on every spending bill presented to him. Perhaps I should have brought it more to the modern era and stated it as the party of Reagan. I also think that many in the party have forgotten Reagan's principle of "never speak ill of a fellow republican", he believed in working out their differences privately so that they presented a unifed message. So yes in my opinion, the Republicans are way off track. I am not a party hound, my principles are conservative and since the Republican party is the closest thing we have to a conservative party I generally support their candidates although the Democrats have fielded a couple of people such as Zell Miller who I could support.

Malingerer
02-14-2007, 10:41 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong but, didn't deficit spending triple under Reagan from 908 billion to 2.7 trillion? And, didn't the size of government actually increase during his eight years by 14%? I guess I'm a little confused about the meaning of fiscal responsibility. Oh yah, didn't the Iran-Contra Affair occur on Reagan's watch as well as the savings and loan scandal? I guess I'm a little confused about the meaning of personal resposibility. The GOP can really trace its roots to Thomas Jefferson who envisioned a nation of limited government and yoman agriculture - now its the party of big buisness and angry white guys. Jefferson would be appalled.
Regards,
Peter Julius,
Bryson City, NC

tompritchett
02-14-2007, 12:03 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but, didn't deficit spending triple under Reagan from 908 billion to 2.7 trillion?

Reagan was also the one that really started the trend of relying on consultants instead of hiring or replacing government staff. It was under him that the growth of the "belt-way" bandits really started. His logic was that it would be easier to control the growth of consultants than government staff and that consultants would be more efficient than government worker as they could be "fired" for non-efficiency. (From my experience in the government, I would have to question that assumption about efficiency.) While the overall number of non-DOD government employees may have remained fairly stable prior to 9/11, anyone living in the vicinity of DC can tell you that the growth of contractors working for the government has exploded since 1980.

bob 125th nysvi
02-14-2007, 12:54 PM
blaming parties for the growth of 'beltway bandits' I think we need to lay this one on individual politicians regardless of party and ourselves for continually electing the jerks.

Let me give you an example. I worked almost 20 years for a fortune 500 company in the financial industry who shall remain nameless. The politicians passed a law (that sounded good) saying companies could not contribute to politicians (but unions could, interesting) but politicians could accept money from PACs.

So a PAC was formed of 'independent people' who all (just) happened to be salaried employees of the corporation (membership was solicited just before review time via a memo from the CEO on Company letterhead) and the 'Officers' of the PAC (just) happened to be the Executive Board of the Corporation.

So after extorting (I mean collecting) money the PAC proceeded to hand it out to every politician (regardless of party) in Washington who could help them whether or not the politician was from a state where the company had business functions.

And of course the politicians gladly took it from the PAC.

Whenever a politician lost a position important to the company (Like when Sen. D'Amato was defeated and no longer Chair of the Senate Banking Committee) the money going from the loser just suddenly started to flow to the winner.

I can assure you that this happened again just as the Dem's took control of congress.

If ANYBODY in congress had EVER been serious about controlling the 'beltway bandits' they would have simply passed a law that stated that a politican can only accept money from an individual American citizen and NO ONE ELSE.

So the reality is no matter what party they are from they all spend more than they collect becaus ethat's what benefits the people lining their pockets.

ever wonder why so many Federal offcies are in that bastion of technology and economic prosperity called WV? Call DEMOCRATIC Sen Byrd's office and they'll tell you why.

And if any of you alleged 'economists' tell me that Clinton 'balanced' the budget I'm smacking you at the next event we meet at.

The Clinton government still borrowed like crazy (sort of like you saying you balanced the household budget because you used a credit card to pay for everything you didn't have cash for); kept taking the SS payments and dropping them in the General Fund and handing the SS Admin IOUs; and based part of its revenues on income projections from investments (and yes the government invests in the private sector. I've handled that too.) that sometimes didn't meet expectations.

The reality is both parties initiate and continue run away spending and then lie to us about it.

The sad part is as a people we are stupid enough to accept the lies and apathetic enough to to not do anything about it other than hope the bird doesn't come home to roost during our lifetimes.

News for you baby boomers under 60 hoping for SS income to balance your retirement budget, the bird is going to defecate right on your head.

tompritchett
02-14-2007, 01:35 PM
Before We Start blaming parties for the growth of 'beltway bandits' I think we need to lay this one on individual politicians regardless of party and ourselves for continually electing the jerks.

Actually Bob, I was blaming an individual not a party. I am a registered Republican, primarily because I believe in fiscal responsibility and a strong defense. I was merely pointing out where the heavy reliance of the government on outside contractors first started.

Unlike the current group of Republicans in power, I also believe in protecting the environment as we only have one planet. I spend part of my youth in strip mining coal country and saw what damage that process could do to streams and such. Nixon dealt with that damage with the regulations developed under the authority of the Clean Water Act and the Mine Reclamation Acts. Over the decades through the efforts of both parties, many of those streams and ecosystems healed - all until the present adminstration undid it all with one re-interpretation of one clause of the Clean Water Act. Literally, 30 years of progress were undone in less than a few years.

I also believe in a strong defense. However, like Ike, I do not think that the military should be given a blank check to do whatever they want. As an officer, I was trained that you must take care of your men and then insure that they are properly equipped and trained to do their job. Over the decades and over several administrations of both parties I have watched as the men and training continually were short changed to support exotic research and development projects and weapon systems whose spending was often out of control. The one thing that I will give Reagan five gold stars for was his almost immediate awarding of pay raises to the enlisted men of the armed services. Under Clinton, the Armed Services, especially aviation units, with the downsizing of the military but multiple peace-keeping missions, were stretched almost to their breaking point with continued overseas deployments making retention much harder as family men were torn between duty to their country and to their families. Unfortunately, we may be again stretching our forces, reserve and active this time, to the breaking point as the current administration for the longest time was reluctant to follow the advice of its senior military leadership by biting the political bullet and increasing the size of the active military.

As far as the current military surge, I actually support it, provided the surge is being driven by specific military mission requirements and is not being made strictly for political reasons. However, regardless of how well how military performs over there, we must accept that the "success" of our Iraq incursion ultimately lies not in the hands of our military but in the hands of the people and government of Iraq. All we can do is try to create a window for them to do so if they are so willing. (I personally believe that window also existed in the first few months after the overthrow of Sadam but that our civilian leadership in DOD blew it big time.)

Enough time on the soapbox.

TParker
02-14-2007, 04:04 PM
If ANYBODY in congress had EVER been serious about controlling the 'beltway bandits' they would have simply passed a law that stated that a politican can only accept money from an individual American citizen and NO ONE ELSE.

I believe the last Congressman to follow that practice was Barber Conable, Jr. from Western New York, who until the day he retired refused to accept any donation larger than $50.00 from any source whatsoever. He said it made him more independent. Too bad more of them haven't followed his example.

Trooper Graham
02-14-2007, 04:33 PM
Under Clinton, the Armed Services, especially aviation units, with the downsizing of the military but multiple peace-keeping missions, were stretched almost to their breaking point with continued overseas deployments making retention much harder as family men were torn between duty to their country and to their families.
.

Don't forget Jimmy C. I got no pay raise at all for his first three years. The fourth year was a bribe. His budgets hurt the supplies and equipment too. Moral was at an all time low. I'm glad I was still in when Ronnie R came to office. That was a nice raise he gave us and they continued.

bob 125th nysvi
02-14-2007, 04:44 PM
Don't forget Jimmy C. I got no pay raise at all for his first three years. The fourth year was a bribe. His budgets hurt the supplies and equipment too. Moral was at an all time low. I'm glad I was still in when Ronnie R came to office. That was a nice raise he gave us and they continued.

Jimmy was the nicest guy who never should have been President. He just didn't have the mean nasty distrust everyone who doesn't agree with me streak necessary.

The nice reality of American politics is that it basically motors right down the middle of the road. Sometimes it drifts to the right and sometimes it drifts to the left. Politicians come and go fairly peacefully. Taxes that we think are too high are relatively mild by most nation's standards. Our medical system while expensive is the best in the world. And you can become anything you want as proven by all the people who have become all kinds of things.

And we still have the right to kibit@h, which is the delicate art of finding a way to complain about something (anything) which really isn't a problem.

toptimlrd
02-14-2007, 04:55 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but, didn't deficit spending triple under Reagan from 908 billion to 2.7 trillion? .


While fighting the cold war yes, show me any time where we had to increase military spending that the deficit did not increase. Also we need to be careful when looking at deficits, what do GNP and GDP do during the same time. Deficits in and of themselves are not necessarily bad things but are often necessary to spur on the economy. Also he had to correct the mess that was left from the previous administration. We also have to remember that the Presidient can only propose spending and the congress has to approve and at that time the congress was controlled by the Democrats. Reagan often had to sign bills with a lot of pork to get passed what was truly needed. Look at us today, how much of the deficit we ran in the 1980s has led to greater prosperity for all of us in the next millineum? We can also look to the general morale of the country at that time as well, Reagan won in two complete landslide elections which means even those registered in the opposition party felt he was the right person for the job and they were correct. Too bad the next President fell into the typical trap of the opposition party when he let them talk him into breaking one of his campaign promises the eventually cost him re-election.

Rob Weaver
02-15-2007, 08:16 AM
I think that goes to show that the Dixie Chicks were smarter and more savvy then at least 80% of the 'American public'!:confused: ...but then hey when ya talk to some of that 'public' its no surprise:p folks sure get confused between 'alliegence' and 'servertude', between 'patriotism' and 'fascism'!!!!!
I feel that what the Dixie Chicks did was neither smart nor savvy, nor particularly courageous. They were in a foreign country, before a sympathetic crowd and said what they said to play to that crowd. As a public speaker, I face this temptation on nearly a weekly basis. It has a name: pandering. And it's not particularly gutsy.

Malingerer
02-15-2007, 10:22 AM
While fighting the cold war yes, show me any time where we had to increase military spending that the deficit did not increase. Also we need to be careful when looking at deficits, what do GNP and GDP do during the same time. Deficits in and of themselves are not necessarily bad things but are often necessary to spur on the economy. Also he had to correct the mess that was left from the previous administration. We also have to remember that the Presidient can only propose spending and the congress has to approve and at that time the congress was controlled by the Democrats. Reagan often had to sign bills with a lot of pork to get passed what was truly needed. Look at us today, how much of the deficit we ran in the 1980s has led to greater prosperity for all of us in the next millineum? We can also look to the general morale of the country at that time as well, Reagan won in two complete landslide elections which means even those registered in the opposition party felt he was the right person for the job and they were correct. Too bad the next President fell into the typical trap of the opposition party when he let them talk him into breaking one of his campaign promises the eventually cost him re-election.
Well.... if popularity makes one a good president then I am left to suppose that Bill Clinton must have been a great one given his overwhelming victories. And since when does 'making the country feel good' become a criteria for great leadership. On this basis Mussolini can be rated as a great leader. Sorry, I just dont buy it. Reagan ushered in an era of folks who started asking 'what's in it for me' instead of 'what's in it for my country'. The phrase ' ask yourself': 'are you better off today than you were four years ago' comes to mind.
regards,
Peter Julius