Proud of our Commander in Chief

OULobo

Senior Master
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jun 20, 2003
Messages
2,139
Reaction score
33
Location
Cleveland, OH
First off, despite being and shameless Bush-hater, and having doubts about the true motivation of going to see the boys in Bagdhad, I think that just going through with the action of traveling on a valued holiday to a rather dangerous part of the world is admirable.

Now as to the whole military record debate. True, Teddy was the last swashbuckling hero that made it to the presidency. He will always be revered for it. Lets start the exam at his relative, the next president to be in the open of a major war. This is a quick recap of presidental military service, domestic policy, foreign policy and often credited acheivements (deserved or not). Please disregard any of my personal biases.

FDR (Dem)- He was crippled, not much chance of military service. Even so he was a ballsy leader that managed to balance solving domestic issues and wartime decision making. Hard to say he wasn't a trooper at heart.

Harry Truman (Dem)- Wasn't elected, but still managed a memorable term. Saw combat as an artillary captain in WWI.

Ike (Rep)- Obviously, his military career is without question. Lost some face in Korea.

JFK (Dem)- Well documented WWII service record. Again managed a strong back against Soviet advances and began sweeping domestic issue legislation.

LBJ (Dem)- Saw action in the Pacific as a lieutenant commander in the Navy in WWII. Strived to help domestic issue, but known for being bogged down in Viet Nam.

"Tricky Dick" (Rep)- Served as a Navy lieutenant commander in the Pacific during WWII. Not a great one for domestic issues or personal/proffessional ethics.

Ford (Rep)- During World War II he attained the rank of lieutenant commander in the Navy. Focused on foreign policy, but vetoed the vast majority of non-military bills and appropriations.

Carter (Dem)- Graduated from the Naval Academy and served seven years in the Navy. Struggled with domestic issues like unemployment and inflation. Seen as a bit of a dove with domestic policy.

Reagan (Rep)- Actor not a fighter. Quite a hawk in foreign policy and often credited with the "defeat" of the USSR in the "Cold War". Managed to run up the largest adjusted national debt until recently.

GHW Bush (Rep)- The youngest pilot in the Navy when he received his wings, he flew 58 combat missions during WWII. Flexed American muscle against Noriega and Saddam. Lost on deficit and failing economy.

"Slick Willy" (Dem)- No military experience and often seen as a draft dodger. Credited with absolving the nation's debt. Soft on foreign policy. Questioned on personal ethics choices.

"Dubya" Bush (Rep.)- Served as an F-102 fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard. Often seen as avoiding combat by opting for the national gard (doesn't work now a days, so don't get any ideas). Still in office.

All the Presidents on the list were war-time presidents with the exceptions of Ford, Carter, Reagan and Clinton. All the Presidents had military experience with the exceptions of FDR, Reagan and Clinton.
 
OP
R

rmcrobertson

Guest
I love that. You guys criticize and criticize, and never offer anything constructive--just what your average Mafia chieftain might say, as they get hauled off to the pokey.

"Empowerment zones?" Now that's comedy.

When was it, exactly, that Americans started being told that they had to line up behind their Commander-in-Chief and shut up, there's a crisis? Funny how these folks never said this stuff about, say, Bill Clinton...

Vitriol? Nice word, good choice. Is that like when people accuse you of being unpatriotic for asking them....them questions about ducking military service? about a fascinating financial history?

Oh well. Don't expect to convince anyone.
 

qizmoduis

Purple Belt
Joined
May 22, 2002
Messages
315
Reaction score
7
Location
Schwenksville, PA
Originally posted by MisterMike
I as most of us following the war saw that the President made a surprise visit to see the troops in Iraq for Thanksgiving. I just wanted to note that this was an awesome display of support, well deserved by our troops. What a fresh breath of air it must have felt like instead of the daily anti-war B.S.

I'm just glad that they now have a President who actually cares about our troops. The looks on their faces said it all.

Oh please! It was a photo-op which will be exploited for every fund-raiser between now and election day. Shrub doesn't care about our troops or about you. He cares about getting re-elected and keeping his investors happy. Period.
 
OP
M

MisterMike

Guest
Originally posted by qizmoduis
Oh please! It was a photo-op which will be exploited for every fund-raiser between now and election day. Shrub doesn't care about our troops or about you. He cares about getting re-elected and keeping his investors happy. Period.

Well if that's what you and every other Lib/Dem thinks, so be it. The rest of us already know how the lib-biased media will spin it. We don't really need more regurgitation.

The shallowness of the extreme left really leaves nothing for their "arguements" as can be seen by the posts in this thread. I guess that's what happens when emotions run too high. You know, the things that martial artists should be able to leave aside?
 
OP
R

rmcrobertson

Guest
"The shallowness of..."

Huh. So far, I haven't read one thing pro-Bush (including the remarks about lib-Dems and the liberal media) that isn't straight off Rush Limbaugh. And WE'RE shallow?

Wow. So tell me:

a) where're the WMDs?
b) what happened to the crowds of happy Iraquis cheering us?
c) where's old Osama?
d) where's ol' Saddam?
e) what's up with North Korea?
f) how many soldiers are we losing a day?
g) what's the plan for straightening things out in Iraq, exactly?

At least they've dropped those silly color alert levels...and the rolls of polyethylene and duct tape...but then they're laying off airport security like crazy...and they just went another 500 bil in the hole, over the next ten years for the prescription drug benefit plan...and out blance of trade deficit is now up to...what'd I hear...50-100 bil a month?

But I forgot. I am of the shallow.
 

SenseiBear

Blue Belt
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
204
Reaction score
8
Location
Oly Wa
Originally posted by ABN
Come on! Enough already. You guys talk like none of these problems existed before Bush got into office. Clinton was no friend to the small farmer (as evidenced by his friendship with that small time poultry farmer Tyson). The domestic agendas of previous administrations don't really strike me as any great piece of social achievement either.

True perhaps, but as someone once said, the difference between Bad and Worse is much greater than the difference between Good and Better.
 

Makalakumu

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse
MT Mentor
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
13,887
Reaction score
232
Location
Hawaii
Vitriol

I think that's what a take whenever I watch the corporate evening news. Oh wait, that valium. I'm going to put a picture of Bush on my boards the next time I do breaking :D

Shallow Dems? Yeah maybe a few. At least I know a fact when I see it and at least I know my own words from Limbaugh. They must install chips at republican caucuses.

upnorthkyosa
 
OP
M

MisterMike

Guest
Well, I don't listen to Rush so there goes that theory.
 
OP
R

rmcrobertson

Guest
Funny. The language is exactly the same.

One of the truly hilarious things about right-wing talk radio and commentary is the sense of victimization, of being the little guy beset by "them, that's so clear on Rush, Sean, Bill O'Reilley--it's always, "Here I am, persecuted as a heterosexual, upper-middle-class, conservative American white guy," and they won't give me a break.

I still want to know when exactly it was that the discussion shifted so that we were expected to be, "proud of the Commander in Chief," rather than the country, its ideals, our soldiers, our actions....

I guess that's just one of those questions that us carping types are always asking, rather than just getting on board...
 

michaeledward

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
82
Well if that's what you and every other Lib/Dem thinks, so be it. The rest of us already know how the lib-biased media will spin it. We don't really need more regurgitation.

Wow ... I was amazed when I saw this post. You see ... it seemed to me that this Liberal (Very Liberal) Democrat tried to give a 'FAIR AND BALANCED' post about this same topic in the thread 'President Bush goes to Iraq' a full two days before MisterMike started this thread.

Concerning the President, I made 3 specific points.

1 - It was a very good move for the president to visit Iraq. Positive benefits can be realized in several areas; the morale of the soldiers, the pride the entire country feels for our fighting men and woman, energize his political contributors, and leave the democratic nominees for president flat-footed. I am sure there are additional benefits that I did not enumerate.

2 - There is an important challenge in establishing the peace in Iraq. This portion of the visit was neither positive or negative. It has the possibility of becoming very dangerous for his adminstration, and our country. Without digressing into a 1000 year long history lesson, the Coalition Provisional Authority needs to find a way to work with the Iraqi Governing Council and the She-Ite (spelled phonetically to avoid astericks) Mullah ali-Sistani to create a plausible power-sharing government in Iraq. The She-Ites have been the majority in what is now Iraq for over 1000 years, but have always been oppressed by the Sunnis. If the She-Ites' long memory demands revenge for the Sunni's past sins, there will not be peace in Iraq in our lifetime.

3. The most cynical point I made, was that the Adminstration needed to get beyond the 'Mission Accomplished' banner on the deck of the Abraham Lincoln. If you choose to see that as a Liberal Democrat presenting an Ad Hominem attack on the president, you are looking at the world through 'Rose Colored Glasses (as someone put it earlier). If the predominant image of the candidate going into next years election is a Mission Accomplished banner, after which hundreds of soldiers continue to die, you can hand the keys to the kingdom to someone else. That is the way the media in this country works ... it is the image ... not the substance.

These points are neither pro Bush or anti Bush. They are observations of reality.

One more thought:
No I am not suggesting privatizing everything. What I am suggesting is business getting more involved in a direct way with the communities in which they are based.

I know ABN has checked out of this thread, but I would like to add a thought on this. You see, business has a responsibility to accomplish one thing, and one thing alone. To make money, now and in the future. Everything the business does, should be driven by this one goal. This is the fundamental reality of business. The function of business is not to help out the community. We certainly look to our corporations to be good citizens, but if the choice is that the company can support the local high school band, or give me a paying job, then I will choose to have a job, and the hell with the school band.

By contrast, there are some things that GOVERNMENTS do really well; such as make laws that provide a 'social minimum'; the minimum requirmentes we have for functioning as part of the society at large. The businessman Henry Ford provides an excellent example of a social minimum; he paid his workers well enough so they could buy the product they built.

One of the social minimums we have in this country now, which is under attack, is the public school system. I believe the current law is that every child in the United States must attend school through the age of 16. Why not eliminate this rule? Then we would not need any government funding for schools (national, state or local). There would be a huge benefit in tax savings, to not have to support the enormous institution of public education. Certainly, those businesses that choose to offer some sort of subsidation to the school system would be welcome. Private schools would thrive. There would be a huge influx of money and students driven in part by the property tax savings realized by home owners. We would not need any silly voucher discussions or programs. Of course, the down side of this is that some children might be left behind. But, if they don't care enough to get an education, and pull themselves up by their boot straps, then they will reap what they sow, right?

What would happen to those 10, 11 and 12 year olds, that for one reason or another, were not able to attend one of the numerous schools that would pop-up? (Of course, our religious institutions could probably offer some excellent, low-cost schools; kind of like the massadrasses in Pakistan). Hmm ... something to think about.

Think about it --- Mike
 

Cruentus

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 17, 2002
Messages
7,161
Reaction score
129
Location
At an OP in view of your house...
I know ABN has checked out of this thread, but I would like to add a thought on this. You see, business has a responsibility to accomplish one thing, and one thing alone. To make money, now and in the future. Everything the business does, should be driven by this one goal. This is the fundamental reality of business. The function of business is not to help out the community. We certainly look to our corporations to be good citizens, but if the choice is that the company can support the local high school band, or give me a paying job, then I will choose to have a job, and the hell with the school band.

I just wanted to state that this is the most true and sensical thing that has been said so far in this entire thread. Good Job Mike Edward! Business doesn't "self-regulate" unless its immediate profit margin is being effected. Most conservative people, if taken out of the context of this conversation, will agree with me in that the purpose of a business is to make money. Period. Companies are not made for the social good, and they don't do good socially unless it is profitable. This is the way of the world whether we like it or not.

So to expect companies to self regulate, and to do social good is too idealistic in my opinion. It also contrasts why companies are built (to make money). This is why Government regulation is so important. However, for people to see this they need to stop and realize that "the government" is really us. We (as in citizens) have much more control over our government then we do over any business. We have voting rights in our government; we don't have that right when we deal with businesses unless we have a financial interest in the company.

The sooner we as citizens step outside of the illusion that has been fabricated for us to realize that collectively we are in control of our government, and that the government isn't some infamous "they," then the better off we'll be.

Hmmm....(as I step down from my soapbox). What was the topic again...oh yea...our 'Presidents' media stunts, and how we should not question the motives of the powers that be because that would be "unamerican" because...well...HE's OUR PRESIDENT AND WE SHOULD THOUGHTLESSLY AND AIMLESSLY STAND BEHIND HIM AND THE ADMINISTRATION WHETHER THEY ARE RIGHT OR WRONG! Sounds like the logic that a dictator would like to instill in his people. Don't be fooled by an illusion. We are in control of our government, so it is our responsabilty and duty as americans to question our leaders from time to time, and call them out when they do wrong.

We are the checks and balances to our leaders. Its the american way....

PAUL
 

OULobo

Senior Master
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jun 20, 2003
Messages
2,139
Reaction score
33
Location
Cleveland, OH
It is possible to be forthright and beneficial to the community and still be a good businessman. The problem is that corporations don't look at anything but raw numbers. I have personally found that there are a number of large companies that are/were privately owned that maintain strong ties to the community and still produce good product at decent value. I pay more for things like soup and jelly because the companies I buy from help local causes and national charities. I don't doubt that if the hammer came down and cuts had to be made that these programs would be the first to go, but often large corporations roll all profits back into the business or their executives pockets, instead of giving some of the "fat" back to the land. While the nature of business is greed, too much of it kills the reputation in terms of consumer relations. I try not to buy from GE or any of its side ventures because I don't like the way they do business, but I go out of my way, and even pay more, to buy Campbells because I like the way they treat their employees and the charities they support, evenif they do get tax rebates for charity work.
 
OP
R

rmcrobertson

Guest
Sure. But the problem is that--as was mentioned--the economic system, capitalism, has no investment whatsoever in anything except capital, its ebbs and flows, its accumulation, its circulation. None. Zip.

In fact, folks like Marx argue that much of the stuff corporations do that SEEMS helpful or charitable is only (when it's not a tax write-off) another example of reproducing the means of production--a company might offer a gym and a workout program, for example, because it cuts absenteeism, helps with their insurance rates, improves morale and therefore productivity, etc.

Morality is NOT a concern or a goal for capitalism. At best, it's a byproduct.
 
OP
M

MisterMike

Guest
Morality is NOT a concern or a goal for capitalism. At best, it's a byproduct.

Morality is something held by people. But if we're going to talk symbolically or in metaphors all day long, where's the morality in communist governments?

I'd rather live in a place where we can trust ourselves to be moral, not have some Marxist values rammed down our throats.

Under capitalism, you can be as rich or as poor as your capabilities and drive want to take you. I can't stand all this "I deserve more of your money" attitude from the so-called "minority" groups. They don't deserve more of anything, not more money, not better cars, not bigger TV's. If you want it, go out and work for it.
 

someguy

Master Black Belt
Joined
Oct 16, 2003
Messages
1,098
Reaction score
20
Location
Milledgeville Ga
Charity is an important thing. Being chartiable helps those that NEED help. There are those that abuse others charity though.
Heres my queston for you
Is it better to help others when you can than to slightly improve your position in life in an amount that is somewhat trivial incomparison to the amount that you can help others?

I guess my normal response of just shoot them in a debate about politics would NOT be good here.
 

OULobo

Senior Master
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jun 20, 2003
Messages
2,139
Reaction score
33
Location
Cleveland, OH
Originally posted by MisterMike
Morality is something held by people. But if we're going to talk symbolically or in metaphors all day long, where's the morality in communist governments?

I'd rather live in a place where we can trust ourselves to be moral, not have some Marxist values rammed down our throats.

Under capitalism, you can be as rich or as poor as your capabilities and drive want to take you. I can't stand all this "I deserve more of your money" attitude from the so-called "minority" groups. They don't deserve more of anything, not more money, not better cars, not bigger TV's. If you want it, go out and work for it.

While I agree that hard work should be rewarded, I think that in many cases, hard work is only rewarded with more work. Just because you are a hard worker or a smart worker doesn't mean you will be rewarded for that work.

rmcrobertson's post about alterior motives for charity and job perks is true, but I think there are companies that "aim" their byproducts at morality. In other words I support companies that try to eliminate absences by promoting healthy lifestyles in their workers verses a company that buys another limo for the execs. I support a company that founds a scholarship program to raise public opinion verses one that decorates the lobby in marble and Miro. I think that if they are contributing to charities and community causes, they are doing it to gain favorable consumer response, and they deserve it. Seems like a fair trade to me. You help my fellow man and in return I'll buy your stuff when I need it.
 
OP
M

MisterMike

Guest
While I agree that hard work should be rewarded, I think that in many cases, hard work is only rewarded with more work. Just because you are a hard worker or a smart worker doesn't mean you will be rewarded for that work.

Yes, this is certinly true. Some companies are better to work for than others. My reference was that if you work to put yourself through school, work hard at being better, you will only help yourself. The company you work for benefits. And you have the chance to move up, or move on.

I'm re-evaluating my own company as I watch them farm off jobs to India. They've obviously caved in to the latest trend for a few more percentage points on the bottom line. For those that do work here, the benefits planis top notch. It has been a top 50 company in the US to work for. And they match all sorts of charity contributions by the employees. So, yes, there are good and there are those that just do what they do. I wouldn't call them bad though.
 

Touch Of Death

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
May 6, 2003
Messages
11,610
Reaction score
845
Location
Spokane Valley WA
Originally posted by MisterMike
Morality is something held by people. But if we're going to talk symbolically or in metaphors all day long, where's the morality in communist governments?

I'd rather live in a place where we can trust ourselves to be moral, not have some Marxist values rammed down our throats.

Under capitalism, you can be as rich or as poor as your capabilities and drive want to take you. I can't stand all this "I deserve more of your money" attitude from the so-called "minority" groups. They don't deserve more of anything, not more money, not better cars, not bigger TV's. If you want it, go out and work for it.
First of all, no true communist government has ever existed, and probably won't. They were, and are, simply dictatorships under the guise of communism. Carry on.
 
OP
M

MisterMike

Guest
Originally posted by Touch'O'Death
First of all, no true communist government has ever existed, and probably won't. They were, and are, simply dictatorships under the guise of communism. Carry on.

Well obviously there are those in his country hoping to make you your first.
 
OP
R

rmcrobertson

Guest
Well, thank ahura-mazda you haven't succumbed to the shallow thinking of us Communist bastards.

Let me get this straight: you're working for a company that is progressively dumping American workers so it can hire cheaper labor in countries with sloppier regulations (Bhopal, anyone?), and somehow this testifies to how great capitalism is? This doesn't strike you as a little at odds with your ideas on patriotism?

I repeat. The reason for the fact tht in modernity, "everything that is solid melts into air," is exactly what Marx said is was: capital converts everything into its own image. Eventually, all that counts is the Almighty Dollar.

Shallow, shallow, shallow.
 
Top