vcjack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by vcjack on Aug 4, 2008 15:15:12 GMT -5
"As a side note, the Spears/Hilton/celebrity ad is particularly ironic when weighed against McCain's private life, in which he had an affair with the youthful, ouattractive heiress who he would later marry. "
No, what is really ironic is that the Hilton family, very strict Catholics and conservative, are prominant McCain supporters and financial contributors and they went ape- after the add.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Aug 4, 2008 15:24:31 GMT -5
"As a side note, the Spears/Hilton/celebrity ad is particularly ironic when weighed against McCain's private life, in which he had an affair with the youthful, ouattractive heiress who he would later marry. " No, what is really ironic is that the Hilton family, very strict Catholics and conservative, are prominant McCain supporters and financial contributors and they went ape- Edited after the add. Got a link for that? I knew they were prominent McCain supporters, I hadn't heard anything about their reaction. |
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Aug 4, 2008 17:34:47 GMT -5
Sorry I can't live up to your discourse level. However, your saying GWB is a bad President doesn't make it so. He may be, in fact he prbably is, but not by your declaration. Moreover, he will never, repeat, ever be the disgrace your man (I presume) WJC was in the White House.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 4, 2008 18:41:40 GMT -5
Those of us who have been around the block a few times remember that Franklin Roosevelt ordered the interment of Japanese-Americans and approved the Manhattan project. Harry Truman ordered two atomic weapons dropped on Japan and later was extremely unpopular and driven from office because of the Korean War. Roosevelt and Truman both agreed to the carving up of Europe to give the Soviet Union control over a large portion of it. John F. Kennedy got us into the Vietnam War (people intentionally seem to forget that) and took us to the brink of nuclear war over offensive weapons in Cuba. Lyndon Johnson was driven from office because of the Vietnam War. Yet, all are regarded today as having been very good presidents. So, it's impossible today to say how history will judge Bush but I will wager it will treat him well for starting the process of how to combat the spread of terrorism.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,727
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Aug 4, 2008 18:54:15 GMT -5
I am still undecided. However, one thing that makes me lean away from McCain is the negative campaigning on the internet in the form of forwarded emails, which are filled with untruths about Obama. Some even go as far as saying this have proven true by www.snopes.com, which when I check it on snopes is just the opposite. Some people are going through a lot of disception to keep Obama out of office (racists?). |
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,727
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Aug 4, 2008 18:58:10 GMT -5
John F. Kennedy got us into the Vietnam War (people intentionally seem to forget that) and took us to the brink of nuclear war over offensive weapons in Cuba. Ed, don't remind me of that. As a freshman at Georgetown, I never thought I would get back home (freshmen had to stay on campus until Thanksgiving in those days). The lineup for confession was very long in those last few days before the commies backed down. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 4, 2008 20:30:28 GMT -5
I am still undecided. However, one thing that makes me lean away from McCain is the negative campaigning on the internet in the form of forwarded emails, which are filled with untruths about Obama. Some even go as far as saying this have proven true by www.snopes.com, which when I check it on snopes is just the opposite. Some people are going through a lot of disception to keep Obama out of office (racists?). I'd really like to see one of these e-mails one of these days. You'd think I'd be a prime candidate to get them, with memberships on a number of political Web sites (mostly right, but a few left too), but I've never been forwarded an e-mail of this type, even by a friend, private citizen or organization, let alone from the McCain campaign itself. I don't doubt that some nasty e-mails exist and have been circulated. I just wonder about how "widespread" they really are, and I certainly don't believe they are being written, organized, coordinated or disseminated by the McCain campaign or anyone connected to the campaign. If someone has proof otherwise, I'd like to see it. PS - Bando - Kathy Hilton's comments can be found on Huffington Post. |
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Aug 4, 2008 20:34:32 GMT -5
I am still undecided. However, one thing that makes me lean away from McCain is the negative campaigning on the internet in the form of forwarded emails, which are filled with untruths about Obama. Some even go as far as saying this have proven true by www.snopes.com, which when I check it on snopes is just the opposite. Some people are going through a lot of disception to keep Obama out of office (racists?). I'd really like to see one of these e-mails one of these days. You'd think I'd be a prime candidate to get them, with memberships on a number of political Web sites (mostly right, but a few left too), but I've never been forwarded an e-mail of this type, even by a friend, private citizen or organization, let alone from the McCain campaign itself. I don't doubt that some nasty e-mails exist and have been circulated. I just wonder about how "widespread" they really are, and I certainly don't believe they are being written, organized, coordinated or disseminated by the McCain campaign or anyone connected to the campaign. If someone has proof otherwise, I'd like to see it. PS - Bando - Kathy Hilton's comments can be found on Huffington Post. I don't think anyone's saying they're coming from the McCain campaign, but definitely from the right blogosphere and the PUMAs (Clinton dead-enders). They read like 9/11 troofer sites with their "Obama is a Muslim/black seperatist/non-American/whatever I can think up today" wackiness. I would simply count yourself as lucky for not having seen it as of yet. Oh, and thanks for the HuffPo link. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Aug 4, 2008 21:07:53 GMT -5
Wow, that's some impressive reading between the lines there. I don't think anyone (other than those looking for sinister motives) would see the ad for anything more than what it is - namely that Obama is famous for being famous - much like the vapid Paris Hilton. Let's be honest, when a commercial makes reckless comparisons like comparing Britney Spears/Paris Hilton to Barack Obama - it can be interpreted in any number of ways. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 4, 2008 21:43:39 GMT -5
Those of us who have been around the block a few times remember that Franklin Roosevelt ordered the interment of Japanese-Americans and approved the Manhattan project. Harry Truman ordered two atomic weapons dropped on Japan and later was extremely unpopular and driven from office because of the Korean War. Roosevelt and Truman both agreed to the carving up of Europe to give the Soviet Union control over a large portion of it. John F. Kennedy got us into the Vietnam War (people intentionally seem to forget that) and took us to the brink of nuclear war over offensive weapons in Cuba. Lyndon Johnson was driven from office because of the Vietnam War. Yet, all are regarded today as having been very good presidents. So, it's impossible today to say how history will judge Bush but I will wager it will treat him well for starting the process of how to combat the spread of terrorism. Ed, It is easy to ridicule some of these things, but it is tough to come up with alternate approaches of any kind of wisdom at the time. 1. When you consider the atomic bomb issue, would you have preferred an American invasion of Japan from the sea? Was diplomacy a better option? What does the lack of surrender after Hiroshima tell about the will of the Japanese government to fight? 2. On the VE issue, who do you send across the Oder-Neisse line to push the Soviets (an ally) out of Eastern Europe? Much of this territory was already under Soviet control. Maybe it was a failure of imagination, but I could see why, after the post-World War I screwup, there would have been a focus on the German question, and we/other democracies would have been hesitant to keep the fight going in Europe. 3. As to the Manhattan Project, would you have preferred that the US go through the Cold War without nuclear weapons or at a disadvantage to the Soviets? 4. What were Kennedy's alternatives to his missile crisis strategy - largely regarded as one of the finest in the history of American foreign policy (and a stark contrast to Bay of Pigs). I would also kindly suggest that it was Khrushchev, not Kennedy, who acted aggressively. Our strategy was one of quarantine. Anyway, it is easy to attack something, but let's hear the alternatives and why those would have worked better. |
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Aug 4, 2008 23:02:54 GMT -5
Those of us who have been around the block a few times remember that Franklin Roosevelt ordered the interment of Japanese-Americans and approved the Manhattan project. Harry Truman ordered two atomic weapons dropped on Japan and later was extremely unpopular and driven from office because of the Korean War. Roosevelt and Truman both agreed to the carving up of Europe to give the Soviet Union control over a large portion of it. John F. Kennedy got us into the Vietnam War (people intentionally seem to forget that) and took us to the brink of nuclear war over offensive weapons in Cuba. Lyndon Johnson was driven from office because of the Vietnam War. Yet, all are regarded today as having been very good presidents. So, it's impossible today to say how history will judge Bush but I will wager it will treat him well for starting the process of how to combat the spread of terrorism. Those of us who have read even more of our history will remember that Warren G. Harding who was a Republican from a large state, gave large give-aways to big oil, delegated large amount of authority to incompetent cronies in his cabinet, and was is generally considered to be the worst president in US history. Also, those of us who remember our history correctly, will remember that Khrushchev placed the missiles in Cuba, not Kennedy. And Kennedy showed strength while not going to war and used diplomacy to dismantle the situation - something that seems to allude the current administration. |
|
FewFAC
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,032
|
Post by FewFAC on Aug 5, 2008 0:19:59 GMT -5
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 5, 2008 6:16:44 GMT -5
Those of us who have been around the block a few times remember that Franklin Roosevelt ordered the interment of Japanese-Americans and approved the Manhattan project. Harry Truman ordered two atomic weapons dropped on Japan and later was extremely unpopular and driven from office because of the Korean War. Roosevelt and Truman both agreed to the carving up of Europe to give the Soviet Union control over a large portion of it. John F. Kennedy got us into the Vietnam War (people intentionally seem to forget that) and took us to the brink of nuclear war over offensive weapons in Cuba. Lyndon Johnson was driven from office because of the Vietnam War. Yet, all are regarded today as having been very good presidents. So, it's impossible today to say how history will judge Bush but I will wager it will treat him well for starting the process of how to combat the spread of terrorism. Ed, It is easy to ridicule some of these things, but it is tough to come up with alternate approaches of any kind of wisdom at the time. 1. When you consider the atomic bomb issue, would you have preferred an American invasion of Japan from the sea? Was diplomacy a better option? What does the lack of surrender after Hiroshima tell about the will of the Japanese government to fight? 2. On the VE issue, who do you send across the Oder-Neisse line to push the Soviets (an ally) out of Eastern Europe? Much of this territory was already under Soviet control. Maybe it was a failure of imagination, but I could see why, after the post-World War I screwup, there would have been a focus on the German question, and we/other democracies would have been hesitant to keep the fight going in Europe. 3. As to the Manhattan Project, would you have preferred that the US go through the Cold War without nuclear weapons or at a disadvantage to the Soviets? 4. What were Kennedy's alternatives to his missile crisis strategy - largely regarded as one of the finest in the history of American foreign policy (and a stark contrast to Bay of Pigs). I would also kindly suggest that it was Khrushchev, not Kennedy, who acted aggressively. Our strategy was one of quarantine. Anyway, it is easy to attack something, but let's hear the alternatives and why those would have worked better. Ambassador, you missed my point which was you don't know how history will judge someone based upon his/her unfavorable ratings while he/she is is office. Truman and Johnson, for instance, were so unpopular that they decided not to seek reelection. But, today, they are regarded favorably. I was not trying to criticize or defend what any of the cited president did, only to point out that history can turn unfavorable to favorable. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 5, 2008 20:52:08 GMT -5
Ambassador, you missed my point which was you don't know how history will judge someone based upon his/her unfavorable ratings while he/she is is office. Truman and Johnson, for instance, were so unpopular that they decided not to seek reelection. But, today, they are regarded favorably. I was not trying to criticize or defend what any of the cited president did, only to point out that history can turn unfavorable to favorable. The problem is that history does not appear to judge some of the Presidents as you do. As to the Kennedy/missile crisis point you made, there is probably a name for people who would make that argument, and historian isn't it. Ditto on the Oder-Neisse strategy contemplated. Ditto on the land or sea-based invasion of Japan. Texts of this kind are likely to be found somewhere near the UFO section in the Dewey Decimal system. History can turn, for sure, but my point is that it is helpful to cite to good examples. I am not sure that Johnson is regarded highly. I think history has done favors for Nixon, who, outside of Reagan, may have been the strongest president of the last 40 years. Nixon probably would have been my top example. |
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Aug 6, 2008 5:34:16 GMT -5
Those of us who have been around the block a few times remember that Franklin Roosevelt ordered the interment of Japanese-Americans and approved the Manhattan project. Harry Truman ordered two atomic weapons dropped on Japan and later was extremely unpopular and driven from office because of the Korean War. Roosevelt and Truman both agreed to the carving up of Europe to give the Soviet Union control over a large portion of it. John F. Kennedy got us into the Vietnam War (people intentionally seem to forget that) and took us to the brink of nuclear war over offensive weapons in Cuba. Lyndon Johnson was driven from office because of the Vietnam War. Yet, all are regarded today as having been very good presidents. So, it's impossible today to say how history will judge Bush but I will wager it will treat him well for starting the process of how to combat the spread of terrorism. Those of us who have read even more of our history will remember that Warren G. Harding who was a Republican from a large state, gave large give-aways to big oil, delegated large amount of authority to incompetent cronies in his cabinet, and was is generally considered to be the worst president in US history. And those of us who have read even more of our history will remember that none of the states succeeded during Harding's presidency. |
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Aug 6, 2008 8:27:06 GMT -5
And those of us who have read even more of our history will remember that none of the states succeeded during Harding's presidency. But at least they didn't secede. Hey-O! |
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,869
|
Post by thebin on Aug 6, 2008 8:53:00 GMT -5
"As a side note, the Spears/Hilton/celebrity ad is particularly ironic when weighed against McCain's private life, in which he had an affair with the youthful, ouattractive heiress who he would later marry. " No, what is really ironic is that the Hilton family, very strict Catholics and conservative, are prominant McCain supporters and financial contributors and they went ape- Edited after the add. Yes obviously both sisters were raised in a very strict RC household. Since the mother couldn't find it in herself to condemn her daughter's release of a sex tape, I'm not exactly sure she's Lady Marchmaine. "Paris Hilton's mother is proud of her daughter's homemade sex tape, according to a new biography. Biographer Jerry Oppenheimer claims that while researching his book 'House of Hilton' he found that 25-year-old Paris' parents, Rick and Kathy, were not fazed when 'One Night In Paris' was leaked onto the internet, and eventually released as a DVD, without her permission. He is quoted by the New York Daily News newspaper as saying: "I have family sources telling me that Rick and Kathy Hilton are proud of everything Paris has done, including the X-rated video that launched her to this international stardom, infamy and fame. "It is a bizarre family. Behind the scenes her parents were not opposed to the video because that totally launched her." |
|
vcjack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by vcjack on Aug 6, 2008 10:04:59 GMT -5
"As a side note, the Spears/Hilton/celebrity ad is particularly ironic when weighed against McCain's private life, in which he had an affair with the youthful, ouattractive heiress who he would later marry. " No, what is really ironic is that the Hilton family, very strict Catholics and conservative, are prominant McCain supporters and financial contributors and they went ape- Edited after the add. Yes obviously both sisters were raised in a very strict RC household. Since the mother couldn't find it in herself to condemn her daughter's release of a sex tape, I'm not exactly sure she's Lady Marchmaine. "Paris Hilton's mother is proud of her daughter's homemade sex tape, according to a new biography. Biographer Jerry Oppenheimer claims that while researching his book 'House of Hilton' he found that 25-year-old Paris' parents, Rick and Kathy, were not fazed when 'One Night In Paris' was leaked onto the internet, and eventually released as a DVD, without her permission. He is quoted by the New York Daily News newspaper as saying: "I have family sources telling me that Rick and Kathy Hilton are proud of everything Paris has done, including the X-rated video that launched her to this international stardom, infamy and fame. "It is a bizarre family. Behind the scenes her parents were not opposed to the video because that totally launched her." Paris may not live like a nun but the rest of her family members are very Catholic. Her great grandfather Conrad was apparently an influential Opus Dei member and one of her uncles is currently developing an all Catholic gated community in Florida. However the real sad thing is that I agree 100% with the energy policy she outlines in this video www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/05/paris-hilton-responds-to_n_117137.html |
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Aug 6, 2008 11:27:14 GMT -5
And those of us who have read even more of our history will remember that none of the states succeeded during Harding's presidency. But at least they didn't secede. Hey-O! Well done, Jack. TBird, if you want to blame a Republican president for the civil war, have at it. |
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 6, 2008 11:59:01 GMT -5
Ambassador wrote: History can turn, for sure, but my point is that it is helpful to cite to good examples. I am not sure that Johnson is regarded highly. I think history has done favors for Nixon, who, outside of Reagan, may have been the strongest president of the last 40 years. I agree with your premise that history often paints a better or worse picture of someone after the fact, but I don't think Nixon is a good example, at least as you suggest. "History has done Nixon favors"  ? I don't exactly know what you are reading and hearing, but I almost never hear anything good said about Nixon. I think you could argue whether he was as "bad" as some claim, but I haven't seen any reason to think that he is getting some artificially positive treatment. Regardless of everything else, he did end a very unpopular war, thereby likely saving tens of thousands of American lives. But he is remembered, and arguably rightfully so, for watergate, plain and simple. His "legacy" also doomed Ford to failure as he could never get over the pardon issue. |
|
? I don't exactly know what you are reading and hearing, but I almost never hear anything good said about Nixon. I think you could argue whether he was as "bad" as some claim, but I haven't seen any reason to think that he is getting some artificially positive treatment. Regardless of everything else, he did end a very unpopular war, thereby likely saving tens of thousands of American lives. But he is remembered, and arguably rightfully so, for watergate, plain and simple. His "legacy" also doomed Ford to failure as he could never get over the pardon issue.