Posts: 2,564
Threads: 324
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation:
0
In celebration of ihistorical ignorance
07-01-2011, 07:46 PM
Okay, I thought Sarah Palin was a fluke with her version of Paul Revere. Now you have Michelle Bachman and her take on American history
What is it with these people? I realize the last president who was a scholar and educator was probably Woodrow Wilson. I do expect a putative POTUS to have at least have a grasp of history that a high schooler would have. What is even more disturbing is that they stand by their statements..even in face of the evidence. At least correct their mistakes. Is it a case of anti-intellectualism bias. I do realize there is a strain of American bias against "weisenheimers" and "eggheads". Then again, this is the land that came out with "Beavis and Butthead" and "Dumb and Dumber", so maybe I should not be surpised by this.
__________________
Into terror!, Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell
Posts: 4,915
Threads: 196
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
2
Because candidates these days are chosen - by both parties - for their ability to win elections, rather than their ability to actually do the job.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.
Posts: 8,933
Threads: 386
Joined: May 2006
Reputation:
3
And once they do win they are simply used as figureheads by the lobbyists.
Posts: 1,407
Threads: 182
Joined: Mar 2006
Reputation:
2
ordnance11 Wrote:What is it with these people? I realize the last president who was a scholar and educator was probably Woodrow Wilson. ...
Obama was a professor at Harvard Law School.
-------------
Epsilon
Not that I like him much anymore, but seriously...
Posts: 2,564
Threads: 324
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation:
0
I stand corrected. See, I can acknowledge my mistake.
__________________
Into terror!, Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell
Posts: 4,795
Threads: 299
Joined: Jul 2010
Reputation:
8
Zaphod Beeblebrox would make a better president. And he'd probably hijack Air Force one.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
CattyNebulart
Unregistered
I believe they stand by their position for the following reason;
http://www.youtube.com/wa...lFiughmU&feature=related
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
Posts: 8,933
Threads: 386
Joined: May 2006
Reputation:
3
Eight years of Dubya will do that to a nation.
Posts: 3,394
Threads: 588
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
0
Posts: 1,407
Threads: 182
Joined: Mar 2006
Reputation:
2
Idiocy is not the making of mistakes, its the refusal to admit you are wrong.
---------------
Epsilon
Posts: 2,564
Threads: 324
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation:
0
Logan, making a flub is not an issue. People make it all the time. I would like to have a presidential candidate at least have the basic facts straight (the spin is another matter). They are interviewing for the job and it pays to have the best foot forward. Not in the mouth. The problem is aggravated when they insist that they are right even in the face of documented evidence. Arrogantly flaunting one's ignorance is eyebrow raising to say the least.
__________________
Into terror!, Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell
The examples of Obama and (especially) Wilson illustrate that having a former educator as President is not necessarily a good thing. I'd be perfectly happy with a president who never even finished high school as long as that person knew right from wrong. Sadly, while lack of a high school diploma is not necessarily a disqualifier for becoming president, possessing a shred of basic human decency certainly is.
CattyNebulart
Unregistered
Quote:Sadly, while lack of a high school diploma is not necessarily a disqualifier for becoming president, possessing a shred of basic human decency certainly is.
I fully agree.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
Well, that's an issue to take up with the voting public, surely.
Posts: 1,407
Threads: 182
Joined: Mar 2006
Reputation:
2
khagler Wrote:The examples of Obama and (especially) Wilson illustrate that having a former educator as President is not necessarily a good thing. I'd be perfectly happy with a president who never even finished high school as long as that person knew right from wrong. I'd prefer my leadership to base their decisions on reality and verifiable facts that whatever gut feeling they have about what is right and wrong.
Amazingly enough, when one bases their decisions on the actual outcome of your actions (rather than your gut feelings of what should happen) you often end up doing the right thing.
----------------
Epsilon
Epsilon Wrote:Quote:Amazingly enough, when one bases their decisions on the actual outcome of your actions (rather than your gut feelings of what should happen) you often end up doing the right thing. Not if you're a bad person, as politicians necessarily are. Then you get decisions like "Create 3 trillion dollars out of thin air to bail out politically connected companies? The inevitable bad consequences won't even be noticed until I'm safely out of office, so sure!" Or, "Murdering tens of thousands of foreigners will boost my standing in the polls among most Americans? Kill! Kill! Kill!"
Posts: 1,407
Threads: 182
Joined: Mar 2006
Reputation:
2
khagler Wrote:Not if you're a bad person, as politicians necessarily are. Then you get decisions like "Create 3 trillion dollars out of thin air to bail out politically connected companies? The inevitable bad consequences won't even be noticed until I'm safely out of office, so sure!" Or, "Murdering tens of thousands of foreigners will boost my standing in the polls among most Americans? Kill! Kill! Kill!" Those aren't reality-based decisions. They both fail to account for the long term consequences (and yes, there could be personal consequences) of their actions.
--------------
Epsilon
Posts: 8,933
Threads: 386
Joined: May 2006
Reputation:
3
Epsilon Wrote:Those aren't reality-based decisions. They both fail to account for the long term consequences (and yes, there could be personal consequences) of their actions. Nah, ass-holes like those just bail to some third-world country where they'll live like kings for the rest of their lives.
Posts: 2,310
Threads: 148
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
0
Off the top of my admittedly not-terribly-interested head, the only former President of the United States I can think of spending much time outside the United States is...
Jimmy Carter.
Who, speaking as a historian, was basically not that good at the job because he was too nice.
===========
===============================================
"V, did you do something foolish?"
"Yes, and it was glorious."
Posts: 24,887
Threads: 2,045
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation:
12
khagler Wrote:Not if you're a bad person, as politicians necessarily are. I think you had better explain that statement. In depth.
(Right now, it looks to me that you're prejudiced against a group of people because of their chosen profession; I'd like you to correct that perception.)
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
Posts: 3,278
Threads: 137
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
2
Or at least explain it, because he's got even this right winger who has a low opinion of Politicals scratching his head...
I suppose he could mean that a politican, by the very nature of their position, that of making the 'hard choices' as far representing what he thinks are his districts best interests cannot be loved by everyone; there will always be those who find themselves on the 'loosing side' of any vote and therefore consider said political a bad person.
Personally I dont agree with that position.
Bad people, as far as politics go, are those who spend more time getting IN office and staying there than doing their jobs correctly. I have several hot button topics on that one that will provoke total right wing knee jerk reponses... mostly they involve the inability of the California state legeslature to pass budgets on time because each side takes a position and wont back down and dont seem to care about what it does to the state as a whole.
Oh lordie the rants I've made about THAT one.
Hear that thunder rolling till it seems to split the sky?
That's every ship in Grayson's Navy taking up the cry-
NO QUARTER!!!
-- "No Quarter", by Echo's Children
Epsilon Wrote:khagler Wrote:Not if you're a bad person, as politicians necessarily are. Then you get decisions like "Create 3 trillion dollars out of thin air to bail out politically connected companies? The inevitable bad consequences won't even be noticed until I'm safely out of office, so sure!" Or, "Murdering tens of thousands of foreigners will boost my standing in the polls among most Americans? Kill! Kill! Kill!" Those aren't reality-based decisions. They both fail to account for the long term consequences (and yes, there could be personal consequences) of their actions.
--------------
Epsilon I don't know where you're from, so maybe it's a country where that is true. It definitely isn't in the US, though--the last US president to face any long term consequences for his actions as president was Abraham Lincoln in 1865, and that was an assassination, not any kind of legal proceeding. (Nixon resigned much more recently, but that was for actions outside the scope of his office and certainly not much of a consequence given everything he did as president.)
robkelk, there's not really a lot of "depth" involved: being a bad person is a prerequisite to being a politician, because if you're not willing to rob and kill you can't get elected in the first place. Perhaps the source of your confusion is that you share the (sadly very widespread) belief that things that would be crimes for you and me suddenly become noble acts of statesmanship when done by politicians? I do not share that belief. As far as I'm concerned, if someone orders his men to go out and steal from people and kill any who resist, it doesn't make any difference whether his organization is called "Mafia" or "Congress."
Posts: 3,278
Threads: 137
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
2
Considering that the governing document (IE The Constitution)specifically states the government *has* the right to collect taxes, nor is it legal to kill someone for NOT paying their taxes, your argument suffers Epic Phail.
Hear that thunder rolling till it seems to split the sky?
That's every ship in Grayson's Navy taking up the cry-
NO QUARTER!!!
-- "No Quarter", by Echo's Children
Posts: 24,887
Threads: 2,045
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation:
12
khagler Wrote:I don't know where you're from, so maybe it's a country where that is true. It definitely isn't in the US, though--the last US president to face any long term consequences for his actions as president was Abraham Lincoln in 1865, and that was an assassination, not any kind of legal proceeding. (Nixon resigned much more recently, but that was for actions outside the scope of his office and certainly not much of a consequence given everything he did as president.)
robkelk, there's not really a lot of "depth" involved: being a bad person is a prerequisite to being a politician, because if you're not willing to rob and kill you can't get elected in the first place. Perhaps the source of your confusion is that you share the (sadly very widespread) belief that things that would be crimes for you and me suddenly become noble acts of statesmanship when done by politicians? I do not share that belief. As far as I'm concerned, if someone orders his men to go out and steal from people and kill any who resist, it doesn't make any difference whether his organization is called "Mafia" or "Congress." Wow...
Where to begin?
At the beginning, I suppose.
"I don't know where you're from" Epsilon has stated that he's from Nova Scotia.
"the last US president to face any long term consequences for his actions as president was Abraham Lincoln in 1865, and that was an assassination, not any kind of legal proceeding." Perhaps you've forgotten that Andrew Johnson (the President immediately after Lincoln) and Bill Clinton were both impeached, and Richard Nixon resigned rather than face the possibility of impeachment.
"because if you're not willing to rob and kill you can't get elected in the first place." Evidence within living memory indicates otherwise - Jimmy Carter was elected President, after all.
"Perhaps the source of your confusion is that you share the (sadly very widespread) belief that things that would be crimes for you and me suddenly become noble acts of statesmanship when done by politicians?" That is a vile stance, and I request you withdraw your suggestion that I might even possibly entertain taking it.
"As far as I'm concerned, if someone orders his men to go out and steal from people and kill any who resist, it doesn't make any difference whether his organization is called "Mafia" or "Congress."" Please cite any case where Congress has given such an order.
Bringing this thread back to "historical ignorance", it's sad that I know more US political history than a US citizen does. I'm not a historian, so I really shouldn't be better-informed than the people who are actually affected by that history. Perhaps US politicians are merely representative of the US population at large?
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
Posts: 3,278
Threads: 137
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
2
Given that they ARE supposed to be our representitives, yes, it would make sense to say that. Nor does it suprise me that increasingly, our elected representatives are more representative of the people they represent. Kinda makes sense that a person would feel best represented by someone who shares a lot of their own cultural baggage as well.
Hear that thunder rolling till it seems to split the sky?
That's every ship in Grayson's Navy taking up the cry-
NO QUARTER!!!
-- "No Quarter", by Echo's Children
|
