PDA

View Full Version : The Office of the President



Collier11
11/8/2010, 12:31 AM
It seems to me that the President used to be revered, the idea of the President of the United States used to be romanticized, respected, holy crap its The President!

Maybe it just seems this way to me cus there is more media now or I didnt pay that much attention as a child but I dont feel like you see that anymore. Myself personally, whether it was Clinton, Bush, Obama, whether I agreed or disagreed, if I had the chance to shake their hand or have dinner with the P.O.T.U.S I would do it in a heart beat. It's the freaking President. I have heard many people say they wouldnt, I know people who wouldnt personally.

You see so much hatred, rhetoric, and vitriol these days...in fact, if you look at our last two Presidents I have heard them described as murderers, a terrorist, worse than Hitler, etc... Is it really the case that those who you hear speaking like this or the loud minority as opposed to the majority?

This isnt about individuals, just the Office of the President in general...what say you?

mgsooner
11/8/2010, 12:35 AM
Phenomenal post. I've been thinking/feeling this for a long time (hint: even before Obama)

Blue
11/8/2010, 12:52 AM
I just watched him on 60 minutes. It was rough. He seems like a decent fellow, but way over his head. Maybe he shouldn't be so accessible?

Anyway my opinion is that in this day in age, with the info out there (false or not), people don't trust the government or anybodys motives....president or not.

Many don't think he's the one calling the shots anymore.

Collier11
11/8/2010, 12:55 AM
I watched 60 Min as well and to be honest, he seemed to be pretty honest and forthcoming

Blue
11/8/2010, 01:04 AM
I watched 60 Min as well and to be honest, he seemed to be pretty honest and forthcoming

Yes he did. The problem isn't his personality or character...it is his policies and idealism for those that oppose him.

He can't seem to grasp why there's "all the hate" about massive spending and bailouts(Yes I know Bush started the bailouts).

He can't seem to grasp why somebody doesn't want to pay more taxes.

He finds it perplexing how democracy blocks what he wants to do. (Thank God for democracy even though he had a supermajority and didn't do much)

He sat there and said it was easy to make promises when he was campaigning but now that hes here it's hard. Oh poor him. And then when asked if he was naive, he said no.

Dude is way over his head. That's fine with me though. The less DC does (R or D) the better.

GottaHavePride
11/8/2010, 01:12 AM
It's media saturation. A couple of decades ago, if the Pres was in the news it was something important. Now, if the Pres is in the news, it's because his morning dump wasn't on schedule. Oversaturation.

SOONER44EVER
11/8/2010, 01:41 AM
My Aunt has met and actually works closely with him. She said he is a great guy and only wants good for this nation. Sad to see so many people dogging him.

Leroy Lizard
11/8/2010, 01:41 AM
It seems to me that the President used to be revered, the idea of the President of the United States used to be romanticized, respected, holy crap its The President!

Maybe it just seems this way to me cus there is more media now or I didnt pay that much attention as a child but I dont feel like you see that anymore. Myself personally, whether it was Clinton, Bush, Obama, whether I agreed or disagreed, if I had the chance to shake their hand or have dinner with the P.O.T.U.S I would do it in a heart beat. It's the freaking President. I have heard many people say they wouldnt, I know people who wouldnt personally.

You see so much hatred, rhetoric, and vitriol these days...in fact, if you look at our last two Presidents I have heard them described as murderers, a terrorist, worse than Hitler, etc... Is it really the case that those who you hear speaking like this or the loud minority as opposed to the majority?

This isnt about individuals, just the Office of the President in general...what say you?

When your President is discovered receiving blowjobs in the Oval Office, exactly how much reverence do you think the position is going to maintain?

mgsooner
11/8/2010, 01:43 AM
IT'S ALL CLINTON'S FAULT...LIBERAL PANSIES

Leroy Lizard
11/8/2010, 01:47 AM
Clinton and Obama remind me of parents that try to be cool around their kids. "Ooooh, ooooh, I'm going to play basketball with Kevin Durant so that I will look cool." Pathetic.

mgsooner
11/8/2010, 01:49 AM
PATHETIC LIBS

Collier11
11/8/2010, 01:54 AM
Getting off track guys, this isnt about individual presidents, just the office itself

OU_Sooners75
11/8/2010, 02:05 AM
What's the office without the person?

You make it sound if the office is some monarch or something. The President's office is as good or as bad as the person elected to be in that office.

Collier11
11/8/2010, 02:16 AM
Its about the overall respect of the Presidency, whether you like the individual or not

Leroy Lizard
11/8/2010, 02:36 AM
Its about the overall respect of the Presidency, whether you like the individual or not

But that's what I'm talking about, Collier.

Take a look at our past presidents. We can start with Carter. He was a nice man but ineffective. But he carried himself well as a world leader.

Then there was Reagan, who wouldn't even take off his suit coat in the Oval Office. Agree or disagree with him, but he came across as a world leader.

Bush Sr. was also largely ineffective, but again he was a man that commanded respect. Yes, there was the time he barfed on the Japanese leader, and that was certainly embarrassing, but it wasn't intentional.

Up until this time, Presidents were guys who wore nice suits and displayed an aura of leadership.

And then Sir Yuckety Yuck came along. He had the cool sunglasses, the saxophone, and the doofus demeanor. Then we find out that he's getting blown by an intern in the Oval Office (the same place that was so highly revered by Reagan), which he promptly lies about under oath. At that point, the whole President as Elder Statesman persona went to Hell.

Since that time, our political leaders have tried to be the Cool Daddies of the world. I'm just waiting for the first President to try and pick up chicks at a rave.

Collier11
11/8/2010, 02:43 AM
So...

1) In your opinion, Presidents over the last 20 years have gotten less respectful overall, therefore degrading the Title of President

2) If you had the chance to meet Slick Willy, GW, and/or Obama, would you shake their hand and/or have dinner with them or would you refuse because they have embarrassed the office of the President IYO?

Blue
11/8/2010, 02:58 AM
I'll go ahead and say it. i wouldn't have dinner with a single one of them bc I believe they are not good people and they have sold their souls. Their agenda was never our agenda.

Anyone who goes out to the woods of California and participates in "rituals" around a giant owl should be deemed suspect. 90% of our govt is corrupt to the core.

Now where's my tinfoil hat?

Leroy Lizard
11/8/2010, 03:07 AM
So...

1) In your opinion, Presidents over the last 20 years have gotten less respectful overall, therefore degrading the Title of President

2) If you had the chance to meet Slick Willy, GW, and/or Obama, would you shake their hand and/or have dinner with them or would you refuse because they have embarrassed the office of the President IYO?

Answer to first question: Yes.

As for your second question: I don't think GW was a good President, but he didn't try to act like a total goof either. I would shake his hand. But not the others.

Collier11
11/8/2010, 03:16 AM
OK, let me ask you this...

Military Generals often have to make tough decisions, sometimes resulting in the deaths of civilians...if you had the chance to shake the hand or have dinner with a 5 Star Military General who had made a decision that resulted in the death of hundreds of civilians, would you turn them down?

I ask that question for this reason...IMO, that is the most highly regarded position in the US behind the President, probably higher. They may make decisions that we dont agree with or that end up dead wrong as well, but it is part of the job.

Would you know grant them the proper respect that the position requires?

Leroy Lizard
11/8/2010, 03:34 AM
OK, let me ask you this...

Military Generals often have to make tough decisions, sometimes resulting in the deaths of civilians...if you had the chance to shake the hand or have dinner with a 5 Star Military General who had made a decision that resulted in the death of hundreds of civilians, would you turn them down?

I shook hands with Tommy Franks, if that gives any indication.

Ton Loc
11/8/2010, 08:26 AM
I'd shake hands and eat with all of them. Pretty damn cool if you ask me.

Besides, like I'm going to pretend to know what's really going on when the country is getting most of its info in 30 second bursts from unreliable biased retards with an agenda for ratings and **** talking.

Yeah, I'd love to meet any of them.

GrapevineSooner
11/8/2010, 08:33 AM
Well, we didn't have widespread use of the Internet, blogs, Twitter, Facebook, talk radio etc. back when Carter, Reagan, and Bush 41 were in office.

As such, I think our opinions of the Presidents and the office itself were shaped by how they were reported in the media. And even if a particular President were the victim of a left wing or right wing bias against, there was still a level of respect maintained for that President.

Nowadays, we live in a media world that's all about hits on websites and TV/Radio ratings, which draws in the lowest common denominator.

As a result, you get your Rush Limbaugh's, Sean Hannity's, Glenn Beck's, Ed Schultz's, Mike Malloy's, Keith Olbermann's, etc. etc. that help frame people's opinions of politicians.

And it starts at the top with whomever is the President.

GrapevineSooner
11/8/2010, 08:49 AM
And BTW, I'd shake the hand of the President or 5-Star General if ever given the chance.

I disagree with many of Obama's policies. But I've never met the man.

As such, it would be disingenuous for me to make a character judgment on sometime who I've never met.

This is something that always slayed me when Bush was in office. My wife's cousin is as liberal as they come.

Which I can accept. I've always said people's political opinions are framed by their life experiences and no two people will share the same life experience.

What I can't accept is when you have a personal hatred of the President. And one day, he posted something either on FB or MySpace (everyone remembers MySpace right? Wait, it's around?) where he professed his vitriolic hatred of President Bush.

I thought for a second to engage him on this topic but elected not to. Looking back, it would have been an exercise in futility, I think.

But I've always wondered what possesses people to move beyond policy disagreement to outright hatred.

dwarthog
11/8/2010, 08:52 AM
Lincoln, Kennedy, Garfield and McKinley might disagree with there being a reverence afforded the office of the President.

OnlyOneOklahoma
11/8/2010, 09:27 AM
I thought about this back when W was in office and everyone in the media just referred to him with such casual distaste "Bush".

Now they do it to Obama.

Pretty soon we are going to be referring to president's by their first name or nick name "Barry". And that is down right sad.

Partisan politics and a divisive attitude in the country has ruined another thing in America, quella surprise.

StoopTroup
11/8/2010, 10:28 AM
Jim Brady was President Reagan's Press Secretary and author of the Brady Bill which was signed into law by Clinton.

Many folks have spent millions maybe billions by now in trying to ensure that the right to bear arms in our Country stays as is. Bringing up people who were injured in this Country by people who don't feel reverent about the power they wield is exactly why maybe shaking a hand or having dinner or a beer is important. Standing outside the White House in protest is your right and should continue but when given the opportunity to talk to a President...you have but a very short period of time to maybe get them to think for just a moment that they work for us.

I think Obama is just one of those Presidents in time that reminds the powerful in this Country that you can be a self made person and that putting a groomed Ivy Leaguer or War Hero isn't the only way to elect a President.

Has Obama made mistakes? IMO....yes. Will it ruin our Country? Not a chance. Our Founding Fathers were smart and since FDR took a 3rd term we only have to endure 8 years or less of someones policies.

I say have a beer with him, shoot some hoops, or
Maybe just shake his hand and tell him how you feel but don't turn it into some sort of media event so you can get the most YouTube hits ever.

Take a look at these guys who are President. They age a decade for every year they are President. It's a tough job.

TUSooner
11/8/2010, 10:39 AM
When your President is discovered receiving blowjobs in the Oval Office, exactly how much reverence do you think the position is going to maintain?

Get some persepective, sonny: Ever heard of Richard M. Nixon? You have to go back at least to Nixon to see the "office" of the US President exposed to such dishonor in the media and public discourse. I think every individual president except Washington has been vilified by someone.

And by the way, I doubt Clinton was the first POTUS to commit shaggy shenanigans in the WH, but the GOP had nothing better to offer the Nation at the time, so they devoted themselves to publicizing Clinton's shameful behavior. Past philanderers just didn't get that kind of publicity, methinks.

Leroy Lizard
11/8/2010, 10:54 AM
But I've always wondered what possesses people to move beyond policy disagreement to outright hatred.

Read up on civil wars and you will understand.

The politicians are largely at fault for initiating a class warfare that pits one member of society against another. But there is an even more significant reason: The feeling that the man in the White House is interested in elevating those around you above you. And little will engender hatred more than that.

BTW, hating the president is nothing new and you can't blame media exposure. People hated Nixon and Reagan. And I mean hated them. But they at least understood that the man was a big shot.

Leroy Lizard
11/8/2010, 10:55 AM
Lincoln, Kennedy, Garfield and McKinley might disagree with there being a reverence afforded the office of the President.

You misunderstood the whole point of the conversation.

Leroy Lizard
11/8/2010, 10:57 AM
I thought about this back when W was in office and everyone in the media just referred to him with such casual distaste "Bush".

Now they do it to Obama.

Pretty soon we are going to be referring to president's by their first name or nick name "Barry". And that is down right sad.

And you can blame it on the trailer trash we elected some ten years ago.

http://www.thehotjoints.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/clinton_angry.jpg

OklahomaTuba
11/8/2010, 10:59 AM
Past philanderers just didn't get that kind of publicity, methinks.Or you just control the media with the threat of being thrown in prison, as was the case with FDR. Who died in his mistress's arms at their love shack while the largest war in history was being raged.

Leroy Lizard
11/8/2010, 11:01 AM
Get some persepective, sonny: Ever heard of Richard M. Nixon? You have to go back at least to Nixon to see the "office" of the US President exposed to such dishonor in the media and public discourse. I think every individual president except Washington has been vilified by someone.

And by the way, I doubt Clinton was the first POTUS to commit shaggy shenanigans in the WH, but the GOP had nothing better to offer the Nation at the time, so they devoted themselves to publicizing Clinton's shameful behavior. Past philanderers just didn't get that kind of publicity, methinks.

Sorry, but you have to be completely out of control to stoop to such behavior while serving as President. How irresponsible can someone get? It's like we voted in a teenager to run our country.

Nixon had his shenanigans, but at least he paid the price.

SouthCarolinaSooner
11/8/2010, 11:21 AM
Or you just control the media with the threat of being thrown in prison, as was the case with FDR. Who died in his mistress's arms at their love shack while the largest war in history was being raged.
****ing liberal

dwarthog
11/8/2010, 11:31 AM
You misunderstood the whole point of the conversation.

The OP cast an awfully large net with this statement.


It seems to me that the President used to be revered, the idea of the President of the United States used to be romanticized, respected, holy crap its The President!


I just pointed out the President being revered isn't something that the past supports since 4 have been assassinated.

The fact that folks out in Bug Tussle get the news at the same time as folks in DC or New York City nowadays enables more folks to be dissatisfied at the same time than in the past when it took a while for the "news" to spread out to the rest of the country.

Subsequently, shock, dismay and criticisms can all be registered with the same speed.

3rdgensooner
11/8/2010, 11:37 AM
I imagine civility, or lack thereof, has always been a hot topic where politics are concerned. We just have more avenues now to express.

JohnnyMack
11/8/2010, 11:49 AM
It's media saturation. A couple of decades ago, if the Pres was in the news it was something important. Now, if the Pres is in the news, it's because his morning dump wasn't on schedule. Oversaturation.

End of thread.

texaspokieokie
11/8/2010, 11:50 AM
Getting off track guys, this isnt about individual presidents, just the office itself

yeah, and you've never hi-jacked a thread.
:)

Leroy Lizard
11/8/2010, 11:51 AM
The OP cast an awfully large net with this statement.

I just pointed out the President being revered isn't something that the past supports since 4 have been assassinated.

You're confusing "revered" with "liked by all."

John Lennon was assassinated, but that doesn't make him disrespected. (I couldn't stand him, but that's another thing.)


The fact that folks out in Bug Tussle get the news at the same time as folks in DC or New York City nowadays enables more folks to be dissatisfied at the same time than in the past when it took a while for the "news" to spread out to the rest of the country.

Subsequently, shock, dismay and criticisms can all be registered with the same speed.

All the more reason to keep it in your pants and not lie under oath.

Some of you are trying to blame the media for Clinton embarrassing the country. Clinton is to blame. He knew he would be under more scrutiny as President, and he did it anyway. There is no excuse for it. None at all.

texaspokieokie
11/8/2010, 11:55 AM
Many folks have spent millions maybe billions by now in trying to ensure that the right to bear arms in our Country stays as is. Bringing up people who were injured in this Country by people who don't feel reverent about the power they wield is exactly why maybe shaking a hand or having dinner or a beer is important. Standing outside the White House in protest is your right and should continue but when given the opportunity to talk to a President...you have but a very short period of time to maybe get them to think for just a moment that they work for us.

I think Obama is just one of those Presidents in time that reminds the powerful in this Country that you can be a self made person and that putting a groomed Ivy Leaguer or War Hero isn't the only way to elect a President.

Has Obama made mistakes? IMO....yes. Will it ruin our Country? Not a chance. Our Founding Fathers were smart and since FDR took a 3rd term we only have to endure 8 years or less of someones policiesort of media event so you can get the most YouTube hits ever.

Take a look at these guys who are President. They age a decade for every year they are President. It's a tough job.[/QUOTE]

TUSooner
11/8/2010, 12:02 PM
Sorry, but you have to be completely out of control to stoop to such behavior while serving as President. How irresponsible can someone get? It's like we voted in a teenager to run our country.

Nixon had his shenanigans, but at least he paid the price.

You're right about Clinton. And by chiding the GOP and do not defend Clinton or any other philanderers. I just belive Nixon preceeded Clinton in debasing the Office, and he did it in a "greater" way than Bill's sophomorism.

Blue
11/8/2010, 12:30 PM
Anybody see Boardwalk Empire last night? They had an interesting take on Warren Harding and his election.

Leroy Lizard
11/8/2010, 12:31 PM
You're right about Clinton. And by chiding the GOP and do not defend Clinton or any other philanderers. I just belive Nixon preceeded Clinton in debasing the Office, and he did it in a "greater" way than Bill's sophomorism.

But the reaction is what counts. The reaction to Nixon was far different, the point where he had to step down. Clinton, for the most part, completely got away with it and it is that aspect that drove the respect for the office into the gutter.

We used to have standards of behavior for those who hold office. But thanks to people like Marion Barry and Bill Clinton, that has largely vanished.

JohnnyMack
11/8/2010, 01:59 PM
But the reaction is what counts. The reaction to Nixon was far different, the point where he had to step down. Clinton, for the most part, completely got away with it and it is that aspect that drove the respect for the office into the gutter.

We used to have standards of behavior for those who hold office. But thanks to people like Marion Barry and Bill Clinton, that has largely vanished.

Sounds to me like it's our fault more than it is his.

Leroy Lizard
11/8/2010, 03:28 PM
Sounds to me like it's our fault more than it is his.

It's his fault and the fault of those that defended him.

My Opinion Matters
11/8/2010, 03:43 PM
Or you just control the media with the threat of being thrown in prison, as was the case with FDR. Who died in his mistress's arms at their love shack while the largest war in history was being raged.

That selfish prick FDR couldn't even wait to die until the war was over.

Oklahoma Tuba, ladies and gentlemen.

My Opinion Matters
11/8/2010, 03:48 PM
My Aunt has met and actually works closely with him. She said he is a great guy and only wants good for this nation. Sad to see so many people dogging him.

I agree with what you're saying, because I possess common sense, but it's a real tragedy that in contemporary America saying something as innocuous as "the president of the United States wants good things for the United States" can be perceived as a controversial statement.

Jammin'
11/8/2010, 03:51 PM
Anyone wanting to be President isn't someone I would vote for. Can we just draw a name out of the phone book in 2012?

starclassic tama
11/8/2010, 03:59 PM
good thread. the most annoying part of all this seems to be people like tuba/rush who genuinely want a president that isn't aligned with their views to fail. how could you want your country to suffer just so you can point fingers and say I TOLD YOU SO!

dwarthog
11/8/2010, 03:59 PM
You're confusing "revered" with "liked by all."

John Lennon was assassinated, but that doesn't make him disrespected. (I couldn't stand him, but that's another thing.)



All the more reason to keep it in your pants and not lie under oath.

Some of you are trying to blame the media for Clinton embarrassing the country. Clinton is to blame. He knew he would be under more scrutiny as President, and he did it anyway. There is no excuse for it. None at all.

What, me confused? :confused: I'm aghast! :eek:

Your right, having reverence for the office of the President doesn't mean you have to like the guy sitting in the chair.

OklahomaTuba
11/8/2010, 04:01 PM
the most annoying part of all this seems to be people like tuba/rush who genuinely want a president that isn't aligned with their views to fail. how could you want your country to suffer just so you can point fingers and say I TOLD YOU SO!

And yet Dear Leader has succeeded (obamacare, bailouts, etc) and the country is suffering. (10% unemployment, record debt and poverty)

That's why we want him to fail, so we will all be better off.

Thus the election last week.

bigfatjerk
11/8/2010, 04:04 PM
I do see what you are saying. Some of this is the media. But I think some of it is that the presidents just being out there too much. How many health care town halls did Obama have? And then after it passed he had a ton of townhalls about how good it is. I think the stuff about his messaging being off is wrong. The problem is that people don't like the message.

I'm sorry for going a little off topic there but the problem with Obama and to some extent Bush is that they are out there doing townhalls and people get tired of hearing the same crap over and over again. Maybe Clinton was the same way, but I don't remember him being out there as much as the last 2. I think Clinton's problem is that he'll be remembered more for the people he had sex with more than anything he did in office...dangit I mean anything he tried to pass...oh err...damnit!!

Oldnslo
11/8/2010, 04:10 PM
When was the last time the POTUS was someone you looked up to?

I have no memory of LBJ. Nixon was a crook. Ford was mocked as a bumbler. Carter... wow, Billy, killer Rabbits, UFO stories, sweaters; Reagan has done MUCH better since office than while IN office; Bush I was out of touch; Clinton had the cumstain, Bush II was perceived as a bumbling cokehead, and Obama is a socialist.

I don't think it's always been this way... but I don't know.

Leroy Lizard
11/8/2010, 04:10 PM
I agree with what you're saying, because I possess common sense, but it's a real tragedy that in contemporary America saying something as innocuous as "the president of the United States wants good things for the United States" can be perceived as a controversial statement.

Because he doesn't.

My Opinion Matters
11/8/2010, 04:13 PM
Shut up Leroy.

Leroy Lizard
11/8/2010, 04:19 PM
Shut up Leroy.

Oh, wow. :rolleyes:

JohnnyMack
11/8/2010, 04:20 PM
Leroy, the sky is blue.

Jammin'
11/8/2010, 04:30 PM
When was the last time the POTUS was someone you looked up to?

I have no memory of LBJ. Nixon was a crook. Ford was mocked as a bumbler. Carter... wow, Billy, killer Rabbits, UFO stories, sweaters; Reagan has done MUCH better since office than while IN office; Bush I was out of touch; Clinton had the cumstain, Bush II was perceived as a bumbling cokehead, and Obama is a socialist.

I don't think it's always been this way... but I don't know.

Nice.. continuing down history we have Kennedy, who was the Original Clinton, Ike had the rumor going around he contributed to the deaths of over a million German and French, Truman dropped the m.f.ing bomb, FDR we've already heard about in this thread as the Original Kennedy and Hoover who critics claim brought about the Great Depression. Coolidge appears to be the last decent man, but he was cleaning up Hardings scandals.

PDXsooner
11/8/2010, 04:36 PM
Obama is capable of being one of the greatest leaders and minds of our time, but he is being completely wasted by our ineffective political system.

GrapevineSooner
11/8/2010, 04:47 PM
Obama is capable of being one of the greatest leaders and minds of our time, but he is being completely wasted by our ineffective political system.

In what way?

Blue
11/8/2010, 04:53 PM
Obama is capable of being one of the greatest leaders and minds of our time, but he is being completely wasted by our ineffective political system.

Woah. Move to Cuba or Venezuela if you want a socialist dictator.

TUSooner
11/8/2010, 05:03 PM
But the reaction is what counts. The reaction to Nixon was far different, the point where he had to step down. Clinton, for the most part, completely got away with it and it is that aspect that drove the respect for the office into the gutter.

We used to have standards of behavior for those who hold office. But thanks to people like Marion Barry and Bill Clinton, that has largely vanished.

My history may not be spot on, but as I recall, the reaction to Nixons presidency was a massive effort to shift power away from the office of the president (War Power's Act, etc). That's a reaction you can hang a hat on.

I do see your point,


BUT YOU'RE WRONG AND STUPID!!!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

Not really. :)

bigfatjerk
11/8/2010, 05:13 PM
Woah. Move to Cuba or Venezuela if you want a socialist dictator.

I hear North Korea isn't that bad. If you don't mind having no power, starvation, and all you hear about is that it's the USA's fault.

Leroy Lizard
11/8/2010, 06:59 PM
Obama is capable of being one of the greatest leaders and minds of our time, but he is being completely wasted by our ineffective political system.

No, our political system is keeping him from running amuck with his socialist tendencies. After this past election it will slow him down even more.

Theskipster
11/8/2010, 07:22 PM
The public's opinion of the federal government and the president started to dissolve after the Mai Lai Massacre. Then Watergate hammered the point home. After that the people stopped trusting the federal government.

soonerbub
11/8/2010, 07:31 PM
I suggest you read up on some presidential campaigns from the 1800s notably Jackson v John Q
fox & msnbc got nuthin on that ****

not to mention Lincoln when he won nearly half the country said "I quit"

bigfatjerk
11/8/2010, 08:15 PM
Hell half the country didn't even have Lincoln on the ballot.

SOONER44EVER
11/8/2010, 08:43 PM
I agree with what you're saying, because I possess common sense, but it's a real tragedy that in contemporary America saying something as innocuous as "the president of the United States wants good things for the United States" can be perceived as a controversial statement.

People can turn anything controversial this day and age.

Leroy Lizard
11/8/2010, 08:50 PM
People can turn anything controversial this day and age.

Let me guess: We used to have the talent to overcome good leadership, but not anymore?

OklahomaTuba
11/9/2010, 10:57 AM
Obama is capable of being one of the greatest leaders and minds of our time, but he is being completely wasted by our ineffective political system.Sounds like the delusions the aggies throw out there trying to explain why they suck so bad after every football season.

StoopTroup
11/9/2010, 11:39 AM
I suggest you read up on some presidential campaigns from the 1800s notably Jackson v John Q
fox & msnbc got nuthin on that ****

not to mention Lincoln when he won nearly half the country said "I quit"

Was watching that show Pawn Stars this morning and an expert on things about Lincoln was asked to come by the shop and look at an old Lincoln campaign ribbon this guy said had been assessed at $25,000.00. Anyway the guy starts talking about the election that year and says that nearly 80% or more of the American voters voted in that election. Quite a feet considering the times.

49r
11/9/2010, 12:21 PM
Was watching that show Pawn Stars this morning and an expert on things about Lincoln was asked to come by the shop and look at an old Lincoln campaign ribbon this guy said had been assessed at $25,000.00. Anyway the guy starts talking about the election that year and says that nearly 80% or more of the American voters voted in that election. Quite a feet considering the times.

Since women and minorities weren't allowed to vote, however, far less than 80% of the actual population voted. In fact, at that time weren't only landowners allowed to vote? If so, I'd imagine we're looking at around only 10% to 20% of the population as being even eligible to vote...

StoopTroup
11/9/2010, 12:31 PM
Since women and minorities weren't allowed to vote, however, far less than 80% of the actual population voted. In fact, at that time weren't only landowners allowed to vote? If so, I'd imagine we're looking at around only 10% to 20% of the population as being even eligible to vote...

**** if I know....I was watching Pawn Starz....lol

bigfatjerk
11/9/2010, 12:33 PM
Since women and minorities weren't allowed to vote, however, far less than 80% of the actual population voted. In fact, at that time weren't only landowners allowed to vote? If so, I'd imagine we're looking at around only 10% to 20% of the population as being even eligible to vote...
Free blacks were allowed to vote. Especially in the north, but even in the south because there weren't many free blacks in the south. But otherwise you are pretty accurate. I think you also had to be 21 to vote.

Edit: Just a random fact that doesn't matter to this discussion. Before the early 1800s women did actually vote in the US. I wanna say that changed under the Madison administration but it could have been a little earlier. But for the first 30 years or so of this countries history voters had to just own land. So if you were a widow or somehow owned land as a woman you could vote.

PDXsooner
11/9/2010, 01:03 PM
In what way?

For one example, he understands to need for renewable energy and for our country to move to a more sustainable model of energy source and is willing to invest in it.

OklahomaTuba
11/9/2010, 02:37 PM
He also understand double digit unemployment, record debt and record poverty.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
11/9/2010, 03:16 PM
good thread. the most annoying part of all this seems to be people like tuba/rush who genuinely want a president that isn't aligned with their views to fail. how could you want your country to suffer just so you can point fingers and say I TOLD YOU SO!how silly/intentionally misleading...or worse

The
11/9/2010, 03:23 PM
how silly/intentionally misleading...or worse
How so?

JohnnyMack
11/9/2010, 03:24 PM
how silly/intentionally misleading...or worse

http://streetbonersandtvcarnage.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/173-0414222001-nazi.jpg

bigfatjerk
11/9/2010, 03:25 PM
For one example, he understands to need for renewable energy and for our country to move to a more sustainable model of energy source and is willing to invest in it.
When? All Obama wants to do is keep using oil and coal just make it harder to use both. We've done nothing to really expand on other sources like natural gas, nuclear power or wind power in the last 2 years. We finally have plans to build our first nuclear plant in 30+ years but last I read that's getting delayed.

Isn't it ironic that the same people that want to put nuclear plants out there now are the ones that got stopped the same plant 30+ years ago?

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
11/9/2010, 04:34 PM
http://streetbonersandtvcarnage.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/173-0414222001-nazi.jpgIs that what you think of our president?

RACHEL MADDOW is my clone
11/9/2010, 05:00 PM
Is that what you think of our president?

You really are that stupid.

RACHEL MADDOW is my clone
11/9/2010, 05:01 PM
He also understand double digit unemployment, record debt and record poverty.

Something tells me that if McCain were in office you wouldn't be making this post. BTW, there isn't double-digit unemployment.

Blue
11/9/2010, 05:08 PM
Something tells me that if McCain were in office you wouldn't be making this post. BTW, there isn't double-digit unemployment.

If you count people who stopped looking and 1099 comission based jobs its around 20%.

Collier11
11/9/2010, 08:18 PM
actually Maddow, the real numbers say unemployment is around 14%, nice try

Blue
11/9/2010, 08:26 PM
real unemployment rate in 2010(U-6), before they changed the rules in 93'.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/learn-how-to-invest/The-real-unemployment-rate.aspx

Collier11
11/9/2010, 08:27 PM
ah, so even higher than I had heard, lol

SCOUT
11/9/2010, 09:49 PM
The problem with the inclusion of underemployment is that it becomes a value judgment and isn't truly calculable. Also, excluding those who are 1099 isn't really accurate since they are actually employed.

I tend to assume that if one side says 20 and the other side says 10 it is probably 15.

Blue
11/9/2010, 10:05 PM
The point is that before 93' unemployment was calculated this way. If we use the numbers today and apply them to the depression of the 30's it really wasn't all that bad. 15%!

Leroy Lizard
11/10/2010, 03:06 AM
Is that what you think of our president?

Yeah, he's nothing like Heinrich Himmler.

soonercastor
11/10/2010, 07:47 AM
Very interesting read. I was going to respond to the actual title of the thread and first post but I have noticed that the thread has turned into a political debate, and I tend not to get into political debates because they are pointless. You can blame a president all you want, but if there was little resistance from the opposition for example (yeah right), would things be better, worse?

After every election (with change in party in power), the ideas in the political spectrum ten to go one way (left or right) and to restore the country's balance or equilibrium, the following elections usually favors the other end (right or left).

To respond to your initial thought, as someone has already mentioned, this is mostly due to the media and the accessibility of presidents nowadays. The president has become more vulgar.

tommieharris91
11/10/2010, 10:21 AM
real unemployment rate in 2010(U-6), before they changed the rules in 93'.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/learn-how-to-invest/The-real-unemployment-rate.aspx

U-3 just so happens to be the headline (official) unemployment rate. It's been measured throughout the entire existence of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. U-5 was official until 1994, but the existence of people loosely attached or not actively seeking work added too much noise. U-6 is a horrible measure because it counts working people as unemployed.

OklahomaTuba
11/10/2010, 11:23 AM
U-6 might be bad, but its much more realistic than U-3.

Because of all the fiddling the BLS does to the "birth/death" model they use to fudge the numbers to make Barry look like less of a economic disaster than he already is.

tommieharris91
11/10/2010, 12:20 PM
U-6 might be bad, but its much more realistic than U-3.
How is counting people who have jobs as unemployed realistic and not intellectually dishonest?


Because of all the fiddling the BLS does to the "birth/death" model they use to fudge the numbers to make Barry look like less of a economic disaster than he already is.

They must have made every other president since mid-WWII FDR look good too (in fact, they must have made FDR look REALLY good with his record low 1.2% unemployment in 1942.) But your partisan mind wouldn't understand this. It's not like unemployment numbers pre-1994 weren't changed retroactively. It's also not like you can't go to bls.gov and retrieve the numbers and methodology yourself.

GDC
11/10/2010, 12:27 PM
But I think once you quit hearing "sir" and "ma'am," the rest is soon to foller.

bigfatjerk
11/10/2010, 02:00 PM
How is counting people who have jobs as unemployed realistic and not intellectually dishonest?



They must have made every other president since mid-WWII FDR look good too (in fact, they must have made FDR look REALLY good with his record low 1.2% unemployment in 1942.) But your partisan mind wouldn't understand this. It's not like unemployment numbers pre-1994 weren't changed retroactively. It's also not like you can't go to bls.gov and retrieve the numbers and methodology yourself.

Thats mostly because he quit pushing his agenda so that people could work. During the non war period from 1932-1940 under FDR the lowest unemployment ever got was 14% after his New Deal was thrown out in 1935.

tommieharris91
11/10/2010, 02:01 PM
Thats mostly because he quit pushing his agenda so that people could work. During the non war period from 1932-1940 under FDR the lowest unemployment ever got was 14% after his New Deal was thrown out in 1935.

Cite it. Don't use Austrian school sources either, since they're not very fond of mathematics.

Also, during 1942, government spending was 40% of GDP (http://bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=14&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Freq=Year&FirstYear=1941&LastYear=1943&3Place=N&Update=Update&JavaBox=no#Mid). Right now, it's around 20% (http://bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=14&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010).

Scott D
11/10/2010, 02:10 PM
intellectual dishonesty in a political thread on this forum?

stoops the eternal pimp
11/10/2010, 02:13 PM
no sir...not around here..I dont believe it

JohnnyMack
11/10/2010, 02:15 PM
no sir...not around here..I dont believe it

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Arts/Arts_/Pictures/2007/08/07/hitler460.jpg

stoops the eternal pimp
11/10/2010, 02:21 PM
http://www.thewheelfx.com/lane/GIFS/Blimpin.jpg

tommieharris91
11/10/2010, 02:22 PM
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Arts/Arts_/Pictures/2007/08/07/hitler460.jpg

This thread needed more of this.

bigfatjerk
11/10/2010, 02:27 PM
Cite it. Don't use Austrian school sources either, since they're not very fond of mathematics.
Look at the Keynes followers. They want to spend money that doesn't exist.

Unemployment went down right after several key parts of the New Deal were thrown out in 35 and 36. Then the Wagner Act after it was ruled constitutional around 1937 pushed unemployment right back up to near 20%. It took a repeal of laws for unemployment to go way down under FDR.

Look at how it went in the 30s. This isn't about math, it's about what laws were passed and enacted/thrown out in the 30s.

1932 23.6%
1933 24.9%
1934 21.7%
1935 20.1% - This year and early 1936 parts of the New Deal thrown out
1936 16.9%
1937 14.3% -late in the year Wagner Act is ruled constitutional
1938 19.0%
1939 17.2%

Unemployment didn't really go down to 1% till WW2 started and students and women entered the work force because men were out fighting the war.

tommieharris91
11/10/2010, 02:31 PM
Look at the Keynes followers. They want to spend money that doesn't exist.

Unemployment went down right after several key parts of the New Deal were thrown out in 35 and 36. Then the Wagner Act after it was ruled constitutional around 1937 pushed unemployment right back up to near 20%. It took a repeal of laws for unemployment to go way down under FDR.

Look at how it went in the 30s. This isn't about math, it's about what laws were passed and enacted/thrown out in the 30s.

1932 23.6%
1933 24.9%
1934 21.7%
1935 20.1% - This year and early 1936 parts of the New Deal thrown out
1936 16.9%
1937 14.3% -late in the year Wagner Act is ruled constitutional
1938 19.0%
1939 17.2%

Unemployment didn't really go down to 1% till WW2 started and students and women entered the work force because men were out fighting the war.

Link?

Veritas
11/10/2010, 03:42 PM
Link?

http://zelda-fans.com/blog/wp-content/images/_Cosplay_Link.jpg