Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-23-2010, 02:03 PM
 
58,749 posts, read 27,080,924 times
Reputation: 14186

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald View Post
A politically gutless and amoral bastard, a far-right warmonger, a dead SOB (at long last), and, of course, a capital-"C" Crook.

W was the only entity since that made me miss him.
You insult the state you live in, (why don't you move if you don't like it?)

You insult with trash mouth language. Do you really expect anybody to value your opinions?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-23-2010, 02:59 PM
 
20,421 posts, read 12,338,684 times
Reputation: 10207
Quote:
Originally Posted by ♠atizar♠ View Post
This would have possibly held some informational value had you not let your overblown partisanship creep into it.

Many of your descriptors -- "ultra"; "moderate"; etc. are highly and obviously biased opinions. I guess you didn't realize it when you wrote it (or maybe you did) but you only used "ultra" to describe liberals. Harharhar.

Just a prettied-up partisan hack-job, replete with several instances of historical inaccuracies. Such as... ignoring the fact that Eisenhower (and the French) were dragging us in before the Democrats got in (the Vietnam issue had been bubbling away since WW2), that JFK sat on his lawn with Cronkite, on TV, and said we should not move beyond an advisory role and that putting more troops into Vietnam was a can of worms we shouldn't open. JFK simply picked up where Eisenhower left off, with very limited engagement. Yes, Ike already had us involved before Kennedy was elected. Tsk tsk... Such unabashed partisanship...

Mc Namara says that JFK wanted to get us out of there by the time of his death. In fact, at the time of his death, he had an order in place to pull 1000 troops OUT (we had ~18,000 there at the time). LBJ promptly reversed that order, after the assassination, and by March '65 he had successfully parlayed the Tonkin incident into support for going in heavy.

So, you're mostly right about LBJ, and I lay most of the blame for Vietnam at his feet, although he wasn't "ultra" liberal (I don't think you even know what one is - as much as you like to sling that term around, whacking about, hoping to make it stick somewhere). Nixon, hehe... he didn't hold to his promises on getting out of there - so another failure of your revised history time-line... who would have guessed?

And Nixon - a "moderate"? Not really. Moderates are hardly as paranoid as he was about drugs, among other things... I suppose that we could point to the EPA and say that its existence balances out Nixon's hardcore conservatism on social issues, but eh, recognizing that the environment needs to be protected isn't just a liberal thing. I know many, many conservatives who are avid conservationists and outdoors-men.

There are more exaggerations and inaccuracies in your list -- but I don't have all day so...

For those who want to learn more about the type of bias Ferd is displaying on this thread, here is some interesting reading:

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

you are at least engaging and funny! I will give you that. I certainly do know that Eisenhower had a small number of military advisors in Vietnam but he did not escalate the situation the way Kennedy (moderate) did. Eisenhower’s 900 odd advisors does not constitute getting us into a war. Kennedy however had more than 16,000 troops in theater by the time he died.

Had he lived he might very well have gotten us out of Vietnam. Nor would I even try to argue differently. I do not know, and it does not matter because he did not live. And LBJ did in fact, escalate the war.

As far as being a partisan hack…. Guilty… at least most of the time and I don’t try to hide that at all on CD. Everyone here is a partisan hack.

BUT where this post is concerned I am a bit taken aback by your diatribe as I have done my very best not to be

. Suggesting that LBJ was no ultra liberal is just strange. Until Obama came along, pretty much any intellectual discussion of presidents would have LBJ and FDR as by far the most liberal presidents in our history. They were transformative in many respects. LBJ gave us the most massive expansion of the US state in our history and we still cannot pay for it (Medicaid and Medicare), in addition to those things the “great society programs and the “war on poverty” were hallmarks of his administration.

I am not passing judgment on those things other than to say they were very liberal policies with very liberal goals in mind.

I don’t know how anyone could say he was not Ultra Liberal?

I have named 4 “ultra liberals” just four in American history. FDR and LBJ without question were. Carter, was so inept I suppose one could say he was not then, though it is clear he is now…. I don’t know. If we were to spend some time on Carter, you might change my mind. Obama cannot be considered anything other than an FDR/LBJ type president.

Now as for Nixon, there is no way the guy who supported Affirmative Action and said "I am now a Keynesian in economics" can be considered an ultra conservative. It just is not possible.
Nixon was a mixed bag but that is what a moderate is isn’t it?

The only President in Modern American History that was a committed Conservative was Ronald Reagan. And one would be hard pressed to call him an “Ultra Conservative” Even on the Supreme Court, he was no hard liner. He gave us Justices Kennedy and O’Connor. Neither hard right ideologues. BUT I did not bring him up because he neither got us into a war, nor got us out of a war… which was the point of the post.

I will be happy to discuss any or each of the 4 I outlined… As a general rule, I can be a partisan hack. Just not this time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-24-2010, 02:40 AM
 
Location: Michigan
12,711 posts, read 13,455,257 times
Reputation: 4185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenery9 View Post
Kids....common sense Obama is the worst president ever! What has he done right??????????????
nota nothing, but create a race war!
He has kept us out of a third war, he has stopped the federal prosecutions of medical marijuana distributors, aside from that I don't credit him with a whole lot but it's more than I would've expected from McCain/Palin. I don't see the blood in the streets from this so-called race war you're talking about, maybe you could elaborate on that a little.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-24-2010, 03:21 AM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
14,561 posts, read 23,012,670 times
Reputation: 10356
Quote:
Originally Posted by ♠atizar♠ View Post
This would have possibly held some informational value had you not let your overblown partisanship creep into it.

Many of your descriptors -- "ultra"; "moderate"; etc. are highly and obviously biased opinions. I guess you didn't realize it when you wrote it (or maybe you did) but you only used "ultra" to describe liberals. Harharhar.

Just a prettied-up partisan hack-job, replete with several instances of historical inaccuracies. Such as... ignoring the fact that Eisenhower (and the French) were dragging us in before the Democrats got in (the Vietnam issue had been bubbling away since WW2), that JFK sat on his lawn with Cronkite, on TV, and said we should not move beyond an advisory role and that putting more troops into Vietnam was a can of worms we shouldn't open. JFK simply picked up where Eisenhower left off, with very limited engagement. Yes, Ike already had us involved before Kennedy was elected. Tsk tsk... Such unabashed partisanship...

Mc Namara says that JFK wanted to get us out of there by the time of his death. In fact, at the time of his death, he had an order in place to pull 1000 troops OUT (we had ~18,000 there at the time). LBJ promptly reversed that order, after the assassination, and by March '65 he had successfully parlayed the Tonkin incident into support for going in heavy.

So, you're mostly right about LBJ, and I lay most of the blame for Vietnam at his feet, although he wasn't "ultra" liberal (I don't think you even know what one is - as much as you like to sling that term around, whacking about, hoping to make it stick somewhere). Nixon, hehe... he didn't hold to his promises on getting out of there - so another failure of your revised history time-line... who would have guessed?

And Nixon - a "moderate"? Not really. Moderates are hardly as paranoid as he was about drugs, among other things... I suppose that we could point to the EPA and say that its existence balances out Nixon's hardcore conservatism on social issues, but eh, recognizing that the environment needs to be protected isn't just a liberal thing. I know many, many conservatives who are avid conservationists and outdoors-men.

There are more exaggerations and inaccuracies in your list -- but I don't have all day so...

For those who want to learn more about the type of bias Ferd is displaying on this thread, here is some interesting reading:

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Damn! That was a smack down!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:37 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top