RPGDot Network    
   

 
 
Gothic 3
Display full image
Pic of the moment
More
pics from the gallery
 
 
Site Navigation

Main
   News
   Forums

Games
   Games Database
   Top 100
   Release List
   Support Files

Features
   Reviews
   Previews
   Interviews
   Editorials
   Diaries
   Misc

Download
   Gallery
   Music
   Screenshots
   Videos

Miscellaneous
   Staff Members
   Privacy Statement

FAQ
Members
Usergroups
Presidential Leadership
  View previous topic :: View next topic
RPGDot Forums > Absolutely Off Topic

Author Thread
Val
Risen From Ashes
Risen From Ashes




Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA
   

@Batacus: My response was ridiculous? Then yours is down-right ludicrous. To sit there and say that professors of law, political science and history are going to put their professional reputation at stake by saying that they are one thing, when they are another, is silly. The people who put this book together weren't looking to make a statement, they wanted an honest assessment. Second, using a movie (i.e. a work of fiction) as evidence is also ludicous. Bush, Sr lost re-election due to Ross Perot and the bias in the media. I gave your post the only response it deserved.
And if you think that I'm a hardcore Republican, then you clearly haven't been paying attention.
If your going to rank all of the Presidents, then you have to have studied U.S. history thoroughly, otherwise you fall under Darrius' catagories of bias and imperfect information.

Darrius, I've done a lot of studying of this nation's history, and I am quite capable of being intellectually honest with myself. I can set aside most of my bias and look at something objectively. Will a listing such as this change as time goes on? Of course, that's why JFK keeps dropping in the ranking. But as it stands now, this is what those scholars think, and they back it up quite well in the book. And I have stated what I think along with my reasons.
I'm not Clinton-bashing, I'm being candid.

@Lintra: War crimes? I think that takes it a little too far. Unless one can prove without a doubt that the sole reason the factory was attacked is because he wanted to divert attention, then I'd be with you on that one. But until that can be done, I'll remain skeptical of deeming that a war crime. It's suspicious, but not conclusive.

@Moriendor: I think you judge Lintra too harshly. I doubt he has any personal hatred for Clinton, much like myself. We just don't see why people are so enamored with the guy.
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound=
Post Tue Nov 16, 2004 2:08 am
 View user's profile
Lintra
Elf Friend
Elf Friend




Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 9448
Location: Bermuda, the triangle place with SANDY BEACHES
   

@Moriendor - You must not've watched the dissary from Clinton's cabinet that Monday morning. We got three vastly differing stories as to the nature and reason behind the attacks. Had this been a long planned response as finally claimed by the adminstration, then why where the secretary of state, the press secretary and head of the JCS telling us three different stories? Two of the three had obviously not been properly briefed as to what to say to the press ... a sure sign it was a hastily put together action.

(Side note, it was also the most nervous I'd ever seen Madeline Albright. She was obviously flustered and off balance).

That impression is fortified by the second round of press interviews when the adminstration had gotten every one on the same page and the story changed to a "Long considered attack". Horse droppings! Even the NY Times initially came down pretty hard on Mr C for this ... but the NYT quickly did an about face and decided to swallow the party line from the White house. But no matter how much is written about it afterwards I *know* what I saw and heard on Monday morning's CNN. I am sorry if you don't believe me, but that is your loss, for you are swallowing the spin.

As to being a Clinton hater ... not really. It just gets me going when I hear him touted as 'a great president'. He wasn't. He wasn't a terrible president either ... pretty darned middle of the road. He was lucky in that his adminstration did not face any really serious challenges ... or unlucky since it denied him a chance to rise to the occasion.

@Darrius - Sorry about that I was being a little glib. Lets try it this way:

If you want to enter into negotiations with me and I say "Stop your countrymen from doing X first and then we'll talk" and your countrymen don't stop doing X then either:
a. You don't want to talk with me or
b. You don't actually run your country.
Seems pretty cut and dried to me.

@Val - Yeah, it is a pretty strong statement ...but if it could be proved that the only motivation for the attacks was for a distraction from domestic events I think it would count. Of course, such things could never be proved. And even then I want to point out I said it boarders on war crimes. *shrug*

In the accounting world we go out of our way to avoid even the 'appearence of impropiety'. Those missle attacks could've been delayed a few more days - after all the decision was made on what was, at the time, old data anyway - with out sacrificing anything ... except the ability to draw attention away from the 'non apology'. I think he failed the appearence of impropiety test *grin*.

Edited: I left out a "n't" in my response to Darrius. Bad me.
_________________
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Just plain clueless=


Last edited by Lintra on Tue Nov 16, 2004 5:08 pm; edited 1 time in total
Post Tue Nov 16, 2004 2:50 pm
 View user's profile
Moriendor
Black Ring Leader
Black Ring Leader




Joined: 19 Jul 2001
Posts: 1306
Location: Germany
   

quote:
Originally posted by Lintra
@Moriendor - You must not've watched the dissary from Clinton's cabinet that Monday morning. We got three vastly differing stories as to the nature and reason behind the attacks. Had this been a long planned response as finally claimed by the adminstration, then why where the secretary of state, the press secretary and head of the JCS telling us three different stories? Two of the three had obviously not been properly briefed as to what to say to the press ... a sure sign it was a hastily put together action.

(Side note, it was also the most nervous I'd ever seen Madeline Albright. She was obviously flustered and off balance).

That impression is fortified by the second round of press interviews when the adminstration had gotten every one on the same page and the story changed to a "Long considered attack". Horse droppings! Even the NY Times initially came down pretty hard on Mr C for this ... but the NYT quickly did an about face and decided to swallow the party line from the White house. But no matter how much is written about it afterwards I *know* what I saw and heard on Monday morning's CNN. I am sorry if you don't believe me, but that is your loss, for you are swallowing the spin.

As to being a Clinton hater ... not really. It just gets me going when I hear him touted as 'a great president'. He wasn't. He wasn't a terrible president either ... pretty darned middle of the road. He was lucky in that his adminstration did not face any really serious challenges ... or unlucky since it denied him a chance to rise to the occasion.

@Val - Yeah, it is a pretty strong statement ...but if it could be proved that the only motivation for the attacks was for a distraction from domestic events I think it would count. Of course, such things could never be proved. And even then I want to point out I said it boarders on war crimes. *shrug*

In the accounting world we go out of our way to avoid even the 'appearence of impropiety'. Those missle attacks could've been delayed a few more days - after all the decision was made on what was, at the time, old data anyway - with out sacrificing anything ... except the ability to draw attention away from the 'non apology'. I think he failed the appearence of impropiety test *grin*.


OK. I was just trying to make sure that the embassy bombings are not completely swept under the carpet here . You made it sound like the SOLE reason for the attack was to distract from Clinton's personal issues with a certain intern.
That was clearly not the case. I just google'd some and came across this pretty interesting website here that has a good overview of the embassy bombings and the US response.
It looks like 12 or 13 days passed between the bombings and the strikes against Afghanistan and Sudan.
Well, 12 or 13 days doesn't seem like a knee-jerk reaction to the bombings in order to distract from anything IMHO.
I'd say it seems like an appropriate timeframe as far as the planning and execution of a counter-strike is concerned.
In fact, I would say that it almost appears like it took eons to plan that counter-strike in comparison to GWB who only needed about the same two weeks after 9/11 to come up with a plan for a full scale war on Afghanistan, not a measly cruise missile strike .

Then you said... "I am sorry if you don't believe me, but that is your loss, for you are swallowing the spin."...

Hehe, funny, when I made that post yesterday, it was purely based on my memory of the circumstances (i.e. the embassy bombings) that led to the strikes in 1998. I haven't been subjected to any "spin", thus can hardly swallow it.
I remember watching the cruise missile launches on n-tv (German division of CNN). I also remember the press conferences but we always get a German translation with the original sound tuned way down in the background.
I really can't comment on your observations ("three different stories" etc.). It's just too long ago. I don't remember to be honest and it doesn't matter to me. It's your very personal observations so I can hardly argue them.
But I can definitely say that I didn't swallow any spin. As I said... just trying to make sure that no one here gets the impression that BC arbitrarily attacked some targets somewhere on this planet in order to distract from the Lewinsky affair. There was a reason beyond that...
Post Tue Nov 16, 2004 5:00 pm
 View user's profile
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Most Exalted Highlord




Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
   

@Val
I still contend that casting a vote for a President or for the other guy forces you to 'pull' to support you choice. It's part of the natural human nature to defend oneself and rationalize one's decision. Still, a certain amount of error is inevitable in each person. So, if you contend that you can be as unbiased as humanly possible, I will argue that no further until you give me reason to.

You may not be a Clinton-basher but look at this...
quote:
By Lintra
To me that smacks of war crimes: in that to kill people to take attention off your own gaffs is ... unforgivable.
Can you honestly tell me that is not Clinton-bashing in your opinion? This is also an example of what I mean by imperfect information. Lintra, who no doubt was a Clinton opponent in the first place, formed his opinion of the attack shortly after the Lewinsky story hit the press. Thus, he came to believe that Clinton was trying to create a distraction and that the act was dispicable, which further lowered his already low opinion of Clinton. Subsequent events have proven that the threat targeted in the attack was real and dangerous ; and that Clinton's error was not that he launched the attack but that he missed. Lintra should accept this and raise his unfairly low opinion of Clinton (which I am guessing will still be low even if he comes to think of this attack as truly heroic), but he is to busy defending this opinion to change it. People keep tell him that Clinton is the best President who has ever breathed and he knows that this is not right. Both Lintra and I are too close to Clinton to judge him honestly. Much of the information regarding his discisions are yet to come out.

@Lintra
I apologize for using you in my above example. I could think of no other direct example, and our current conversation fit so perfectly.
quote:
By Lintra
If you want to enter into negotiations with me and I say "Stop your countrymen from doing X first and then we'll talk" and your countrymen don't stop doing X then either:
a. You don't want to talk with me or
b. You don't actually run your country.
Seems pretty cut and dried to me.
If you and I are fighting a war (over what was my country until you took it by force, I might add) and I say to you, "Let's discuss terms for peace" and you say, "stop fighting and then we will talk" I will say one of the following.
a. That's what I want to talk about, if we stop fighting first what will we have to talk about.
b. A negotiation is where you deal with each in a give and take, not make one-sided demands, what are you going to give if I stop fighting.
c. You already took my whole country, I am supposed to believe I can convince you to give some of it back if I stop fighting BEFORE we make a deal.

The conflict Israelis and Palestinians is anything but cut and dried. So many philisophical questions about who is right and who is wrong could be raised that it is mind boggling. They each have to be willing to give something to the other side and that requires talk. Obviously, the degree of self control that the Palestinians have does not rival that within Israel, the Palestinians have been on the losing end of a war for 60 years. But Arafat is the only leader they had, to say, we won't, talk to him is to say that we are willing to fight until one side is all gone.
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole
Post Tue Nov 16, 2004 8:24 pm
 View user's profile
Lintra
Elf Friend
Elf Friend




Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 9448
Location: Bermuda, the triangle place with SANDY BEACHES
   

@Darrius - Okay this has gotta be quick, 'cuz I've got a meeting to get to ...

1. The genisis of this whole discussion was a comment about Clinton's ranking and public impressions of him. As I wrote above I have a very vivid memory of watching his cabinet caught with their pants down ... a very rare event for most presidents in the TV age. The fact they regrouped and were able to confuse the issue is ... impressive ... but I have 4 other adults ranging in age from (at the time) 38 to 73 that ran the spectrum from liberal to foaming at the mouth conservative (not me) to back up my memory. And believe me, we've discussed this more than once.

I disagree about being too close to judge honestly ... I stick by my comment he was a mediacore president ... who has managed to convice a large number of people he was a great president. When I hear the pro Clinton trumpets being blown I feel I have to step in with the other side.

Hmmmm, odd though, I've only defended him once or twice. Guess I do enjoy throwing darts at the poor guy more often than not *shrug* oh well.

As to the Palestinian sitch ... I don't think the request to halt the suicide bombings as a show of good faith was unreasonable. In fact calling for a cease fire so that peace talks can take place is pretty common. My guess would be that Israel knew Arafat couldn't call off the goon platoon and called his bluff. I have NO proof that he couldn't call off the goons, but I believe it to be a pretty good guess.

Anywho ... gotta run. Have a good night all.
_________________
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Just plain clueless=
Post Tue Nov 16, 2004 10:11 pm
 View user's profile
Val
Risen From Ashes
Risen From Ashes




Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA
   

quote:
Originally posted by Darrius Cole
I still contend that casting a vote for a President or for the other guy forces you to 'pull' to support you choice.

I haven't voted for or against any of the Presidents in the ranking. The first Presidental race I could vote on was 2000. Sorry, missed.

As for Lintra's comments, he has explained them. I stated before that I thought he was going out on a limb, but he has now qualified his statements.
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound=
Post Fri Nov 19, 2004 7:37 pm
 View user's profile


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
All times are GMT.
The time now is Tue Apr 16, 2019 9:51 am



Powered by phpBB © 2001 phpBB Group
 
 
 
All original content of this site is copyrighted by RPGWatch. Copying or reproducing of any part of this site is strictly prohibited. Taking anything from this site without authorisation will be considered stealing and we'll be forced to visit you and jump on your legs until you give it back.