- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 5/9/17 at 9:55 am to CoachDon
Huh?
Posted on 5/9/17 at 10:12 am to tigerbait3488
quote:
Shame she does not run for President
No thanks. Isn't she kind of a lefty apologist?
Posted on 5/9/17 at 10:16 am to SlowFlowPro
Why Her Dreams Crashed
By Fred Kaplan
Sunday, November 4, 2007
As Condoleezza Rice jets around the world, she must sometimes wonder where she's going. Over her three years as secretary of state, she has squandered great opportunities by putting faith and loyalty above her old worldview. The problem isn't just that she has swerved from the realism that propelled her to prominence; it's that the result has been a shambles.
Rice isn't used to failure, and most Americans aren't used to thinking of her as one. In Beltway wisdom, she's the star of President Bush's second-term team, someone who has employed smarts, sense and style to try to steer a wiser course in the world. But if she is now veering back to realism, it's after too long a detour into post-9/11 messianism. Rice remains one of the architects of a fantasy foreign policy, and her record as secretary of state gives little hope that she'll be able to reverse that verdict in the administration's final months.
The case against Condi starts with her dismal tenure as national security adviser in Bush's first term -- perhaps the worst in the office's history. Her main task was to coordinate policy, but she was outmaneuvered at every turn by the ruthless infighters around her, especially Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. So she focused on the job's other mandate: counseling the unschooled president on foreign affairs. As Bush's tutor in the 2000 campaign, she'd gained his trust, which became the basis of her power: When she spoke, everybody knew that she was speaking on Bush's behalf, not advancing her own agenda.
The State Department seemed a place where she could make the most of that asset. She would finally be a player, a Cabinet secretary with a budget, a bureaucracy and something her beleaguered predecessor, Gen. Colin L. Powell, never had: unfettered access to the commander in chief. At first, she did things that Bush had previously resisted -- reopened nuclear talks with Iran and North Korea, pushed a U.N. Security Council resolution on war crimes in Sudan, and (unlike Powell) traveled, a lot.
The early reviews were glowing. The media compared her to George Marshall, marveled at her "perfectionist drive" and parsed "the Condi doctrine." But she was only doing things that most secretaries of state do routinely. The substance of her views and the fruits of her globe-trotting weren't clear -- and still aren't.
LINK
What part of "She's a fricking disaster," are ya'll not getting?
By Fred Kaplan
Sunday, November 4, 2007
As Condoleezza Rice jets around the world, she must sometimes wonder where she's going. Over her three years as secretary of state, she has squandered great opportunities by putting faith and loyalty above her old worldview. The problem isn't just that she has swerved from the realism that propelled her to prominence; it's that the result has been a shambles.
Rice isn't used to failure, and most Americans aren't used to thinking of her as one. In Beltway wisdom, she's the star of President Bush's second-term team, someone who has employed smarts, sense and style to try to steer a wiser course in the world. But if she is now veering back to realism, it's after too long a detour into post-9/11 messianism. Rice remains one of the architects of a fantasy foreign policy, and her record as secretary of state gives little hope that she'll be able to reverse that verdict in the administration's final months.
The case against Condi starts with her dismal tenure as national security adviser in Bush's first term -- perhaps the worst in the office's history. Her main task was to coordinate policy, but she was outmaneuvered at every turn by the ruthless infighters around her, especially Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. So she focused on the job's other mandate: counseling the unschooled president on foreign affairs. As Bush's tutor in the 2000 campaign, she'd gained his trust, which became the basis of her power: When she spoke, everybody knew that she was speaking on Bush's behalf, not advancing her own agenda.
The State Department seemed a place where she could make the most of that asset. She would finally be a player, a Cabinet secretary with a budget, a bureaucracy and something her beleaguered predecessor, Gen. Colin L. Powell, never had: unfettered access to the commander in chief. At first, she did things that Bush had previously resisted -- reopened nuclear talks with Iran and North Korea, pushed a U.N. Security Council resolution on war crimes in Sudan, and (unlike Powell) traveled, a lot.
The early reviews were glowing. The media compared her to George Marshall, marveled at her "perfectionist drive" and parsed "the Condi doctrine." But she was only doing things that most secretaries of state do routinely. The substance of her views and the fruits of her globe-trotting weren't clear -- and still aren't.
LINK
What part of "She's a fricking disaster," are ya'll not getting?
Posted on 5/9/17 at 10:19 am to tigerbait3488
quote:
One of the smartest woman in America. Shame she does not run for President
It'd be impossible for her to win the primary when there are such a large number of people in the party who would never vote for her.
Posted on 5/9/17 at 10:19 am to Number2
quote:
In the New Orleans monuments case, it's not that they owned slaves, it's that they were traitors trying to preserve the institution.
Didn't all the Presidents up until Lincoln pretty much own slaves and preserve the institution? Any of them could have worked to abolish slavery, could they not?
Do we toss out Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and so on?
Posted on 5/9/17 at 10:22 am to DawgsLife
quote:
Do we toss out Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and so on?
Thats the plan.
Posted on 5/9/17 at 10:22 am to DawgsLife
quote:
Didn't all the Presidents up until Lincoln pretty much own slaves and preserve the institution?
No. Neither President Adams owned slaves.
Posted on 5/9/17 at 10:25 am to DawgsLife
quote:
Any of them could have worked to abolish slavery, could they not?
President John Quincy Adams did.
"Like most contemporaries, John Quincy Adams' views on slavery evolved over time. Historian David F. Ericson asks why he never became an abolitionist. He never joined the movement called "abolitionist" by historians—the one led by William Lloyd Garrison—because it demanded the immediate abolition of slavery and insisted it was a sin to enslave people. Further, abolitionism meant disunion and Adams was a staunch champion of American nationalism and union.[1]
He often dealt with slavery-related issues during his seventeen-year congressional career, which began after his presidency. In the House Adams became a champion of free speech, demanding that petitions against slavery be heard despite a "gag rule" that said they could not be heard.[2] Adams repeatedly spoke out against the "Slave Power", that is the organized political power of the slave owners who dominated all the southern states and their representation in Congress.[3] He vehemently attacked the annexation of Texas (1845) and the Mexican War (1846–48) as part of a "conspiracy" to extend slavery.[4] During the censure debate, Adams said that he took delight in the fact that southerners would forever remember him as "the acutest, the astutest, the archest enemy of southern slavery that ever existed".[5]
Biographers Nagle and Parsons argue that he was not a true abolitionist, although he quickly became the primary enemy of slavery in Congress.[6][7] Though he, like most anti-slavery contemporaries such as Henry Clay, held the preservation of the union as the primary goal, he increasingly became more forceful for the anti-slavery cause.[6] Remini notes that Adams feared that the end of slavery could only come through civil war or the consent of the slave South, and not quickly and painlessly as the abolitionists wanted.[8]"
LINK
Posted on 5/9/17 at 10:26 am to tigercreole
quote:
Totally agree. Need to put more emphasis on slavery and details of other wonderful deeds committed by our great nation in the curriculums and show what America is really about.
Are you insinuating that slavery and other atrocious deeds done by us throughout history should not be taught? Or that we think they should not be taught as atrocities?
When I was in school, (A long, long time ago) I was taught about slavery, the Trail of Tears and other such atrocities. They should all be taught as a part of our past...you teach the good and the bad.
Posted on 5/9/17 at 10:27 am to DawgsLife
quote:
Didn't all the Presidents up until Lincoln pretty much own slaves and preserve the institution?
If you knew any fricking thing at all you would know that Slavery was governed by state law, not federal. The first Federal act against slavery (and the last) was the 13th Amendment:
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
Pow. Done and done.
Posted on 5/9/17 at 10:29 am to bamarep
quote:
Kilmeade asked, “As an African-American woman, do you see yourself in this constitution? Do you think that, when we look at nine of our first twelve presidents as slave owners, should we start taking their statues down and say, we’re embarrassed by you?”
This is so embarrassing but says so much about the direction America is going today.
Asking a VERY successful black female this question is absurd, especially after the way she was treated by the left when she held her position under Bush.
Posted on 5/9/17 at 10:29 am to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
No. Neither President Adams owned slaves.
Ok. How about the rest? Take Washington off the dollar bill? Tear down his statues? take his paintings out of the White House?
ETA
I knew about the Adams not owning slaves, but had forgotten!
This post was edited on 5/9/17 at 10:32 am
Posted on 5/9/17 at 10:33 am to WhiskeyPapa
quote:There was a plaque on the observation floor of one of the towers that depicted an airliner crashing into one of the buildings. It said that the towers were designed to withstand a direct hit from the largest jet at that time, a 737.
In response to your comment that you could personally “plead guilty” to not having imagined terrorists would use passenger aircraft as weapons?please stop lying.
Clearly the idea of a plane hitting the towers was a consideration going back before its construction.
Posted on 5/9/17 at 10:36 am to RollTide1987
quote:
The Civil War made us stronger as a nation
Oh it made America stronger alright.
It jumpstarted the process for the federal government to grow into the absolute power hungry monster it is today and completely killed off states rights and made the tenth amendment worthless.
Posted on 5/9/17 at 10:37 am to DawgsLife
quote:
Ok. How about the rest? Take Washington off the dollar bill? Tear down his statues? take his paintings out of the White House?
No, because it is fricking stupid to judge historical people by modern day standards.
Posted on 5/9/17 at 10:41 am to DawgsLife
quote:
Ok. How about the rest? Take Washington off the dollar bill? Tear down his statues? take his paintings out of the White House?
Washington was co-opted by the Slave Power to fool morons like you. His image appears on the great seal of the So-called Confederacy. Even though he said:
"In all our deliberations on this subject we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence. This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on our minds, led each state in the Convention to be less rigid on points of inferior magnitude, than might have been otherwise expected; and thus the Constitution, which we now present, is the result of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensible."
9/17/87
Posted on 5/9/17 at 10:45 am to DawgsLife
quote:
DawgsLife
I think you missed the part where I said they were traitors. That's the most important part.
Posted on 5/9/17 at 10:45 am to Sentrius
quote:
It jumpstarted the process for the federal government to grow into the absolute power hungry monster it is today and completely killed off states rights and made the tenth amendment worthless.
Nah.
Before the ACW the US Army was 17,000 strong. After the war, 24,000. All the taxes imposed to fund the war were repealed including an income tax. The country went back to being funded primarily by the tariff.
Posted on 5/9/17 at 10:45 am to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
If you knew any fricking thing at all you would know that Slavery was governed by state law, not federal. The first Federal act against slavery (and the last) was the 13th Amendment:
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
Pow. Done and done.
I had forgotten about the Adams. And whether slavery was governed by state law or not is immaterial. as we know, it was eventually abolished and changed. The other president COULD have worked to have it changed just as it was eventually. But the fact is that it was an accepted practice in the country an nobody (save a very few) wanted to change it, therefore it remained.
The argument was made that the statues were torn down in NOLA justifiably because those guy owned slavery and wanted to protect it. My point is, that any of our Presidents could have worked towards ending slavery at any time, just as Lincoln did. Shoot, several of the first Presidents helped frame the Constitution and could have influenced it, but they did not.
Should we do away with the rest of their accomplishments because of this?
Just because one or two Presidents did not own slaves does not negate the fact that most did.
Shoot, US Grant owned slaves.
Julia Dent Grant came from a slave-owning family and was an apologist for slavery throughout her life and the Civil War. The Grants owned slaves that came from Julia's father and Grant himself was responsible for supervising them. These slaves were not freed until 1865 when Missouri officially abolished slavery.
While Robert E. Lee inherited slaves from his Father-in-law but released them in 1861 before the Emancipation Proclamation.
Robert E. Lee came from a slave-owning family, but upon his father-in-law's death, all those slaves were freed (this was 1862 before the Emancipation Proclamation). In a letter to President Pierce, Lee wrote that "There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil."
Slaves, or no?
Yet people will advocate for tearing down a RE Lee statue while thinking it perfectly reasonable to keep one of US Grant.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News