Badmovies.org Forum

Does anyone else watch these?  As a history and government teacher, as well as a political junkie in general, I started watching them with the basic motivation of simply staying informed on current events and political trends about 20 years ago.  Then I discovered that I actually enjoyed them.  I have only missed one since 1992.

As I listened to Bush tonight, I realized something.  I am going to miss this man being President.  I know right now that 60% of the public does not share that opinion - many emphatically so - but it's how I feel.  He doesn't have the inspirational eloquence of Reagan, the fire of Kennedy, or the packaged slickness of Bill Clinton, but there is a simplicity and an earnestness about him that I find compelling.  I get the feeling he is a regular guy doing the best he can in the most difficult job on earth, and I am profoundly grateful that I do not have his responsibilities resting on my shoulders day after day.  I hope history will be kinder to him than his contemporaries have.

Anyone else out there listen to him tonight?

You and every comedian in the free world, sir.  :wink:

lol. scratch that

I guess I could be tempted watching a political speech like that if one of those "State of the Union - Drinking Games" was involved... Sounds fun if taken seriously.

I figured I would be in the minority, and lose karma points, over this one.  Oh well!  Vive la free expression!

I watched it and the evident partisan divide in congress is really disturbing. I believe that all of these old school Washington politician need to be shown the door and bring a new crop in with TERM LIMITS. These clowns that have never had any job outside of politics are just clueless to what it is to live in the REAL AMERICA. I'm talking about both sides of the aisle, it's time us voters clean house. I'm getting to be as about anti incumbent as I can be.

Agree with you CHEEZEWIZ: "These clowns that have never had any job outside of politics are just clueless to what it is to live in the REAL AMERICA."  I must point out that the resume of our sitting President is not impressive. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYvfxvDwJxA  

 :teddyr:

What ALLHOLLOWHEAD agrees with me? I'm shocked. Never said the Prez did, but at least he's had a couple of real jobs as opposed to many on both sides that have never done nothing but politics.

Bang on that, brother.  I'm so sick of politics - all sides.  It's all just talk talk talk.  The sick thing is that they KNOW they don't mean a word they say, we KNOW they don't mean a word they say, they KNOW we KNOW, and still the wheel keeps turning with the same submoronic idioticy day after day.

Clean house.  There's a campaign slogan I can sink my teeth into.

 I think my opinion of Bush has been documented on the board before...though I have to admit...listening to him talk is entertaining in a 'BAD' kinda way....it's almost frightining in it's absurd-ness. Almost surreal...
...and thats coing from a flake who believes in 'flying saucers' and thinks Bela Lugosi is the Second Coming.

 So I guess you can interpet that any way you want... :twirl:


I basiclly believe all politictions are full of sh!t...left or right. I have no use for there lying,phoney hucksterism.

I've thought if having bumper stickers printed to that effect. Either that or another classic, "Throw the bums out!"

:bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: touche...  :thumbup: 
As for "Real jobs"?  I don't think so; it's all family money, mismanagement, forfeiture, and questionable ethics.  But the W did make BIG BUX!   :teddyr: :wink: 

Let me inject this into what has become an interesting discussion:

Term limits are a bad idea, unless they are the Constitutional variety - that is, imposed by the voters with their ballots.  But if you look at history, again and again, it is the men who have spent a lifetime in government service who wind up saving the day.

Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and John C. Calhoun each had 40 years in government when they engineered the Compromise of 1850 that forestalled the Civil War by a decade and probably wound up saving the Union.

Winston Churchill had been in Parliament for 40 years when he was called on to lead the country in its darkest - and finest  - hour.  He not only saved England, you can make a very convincing case that this remarkable, stubborn, incredibly alcoholic Victorian throwback saved the whole world.

Vote the bums out, if you think they deserve it.  But leave the Constitution alone - mandatory term limits are one of those things that seem like a good idea, but come replete with unintended consequences.

You say that like it is prima facie a good thing.  My question to you is: what do you speculate would have happened if the South split away, and the Union became two countries?

I'll tell you my speculation after I hear yours, but I'll give you a hint as to what I am thinking.  I don't think we'd be much different now, 150 years later, than we are now.

I'll turn the mike over to you....

Indiana, as you know most of the time we are on the same political page. However, as far as term limits go I feel that todays politicians have become to self serving and rarely have the best interest of their constituents at heart. Case in point, a number of our collective fine members of congress were dismayed and some verbally upset when the populous spoke out against the amnesty bill. One congressmen in Ohio even said something to the effect "I don't care what these people want, I know what's best for them." and he wasn't the only one with similar statements.
 To many of these yahoos have forgotten just who they work for and act if they are members of the super elite and not the public servants in which they are, in short many of them need to be brought down a few notches. My Rep Mitch McConnell is one, Harry Reed, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Trent Lott and dare I say John McCain are others. I'm sick of all of them spending like drunken sailors and sticking their hand in my pocket like it's a bottomless pit. We have gotten so far away from what the founding fathers had in mind it's scary.
Earmark spending, pork barrel programs and hand out on a grand scale. I don't believe in entitlements ... you are entitled to get an education, get a job, get to up off your butt and pay taxes like the rest of us and get the hell out of my pocket. If I can't claim you on my taxes I damn sure don't want to support you! (I exclude from these statement the elderly and infirm. I have a tiny grain of compassion.)
These buttheads in Washington who have never had to meet a payroll where they couldn't just print more money as needed, never had to work for a raise, just vote another one in as needed, never had to deal with the insane rules and reg they inflict on businesses and then stand there wondering why jobs are moving out of the country. They are out of touch and they are not the men and women of yesteryear. If term limits are a bad idea then why does the president have one?

The biggest problem we face in the country is citizen ignorance and apathy, I've talked to so many people that either don't care or don't know the any facts about anything in the presidential race. Some don't even know who is running .. it's scary really and it's sad when 30% of the registered voter polling is considered heavy turn out.

Ok someone else take the soapbox before I really go off ... 

A while back, one of the fringe parties had the slogan 'Keep the Bastards Honest'.  They were a minor party, but the third largest in the country, so a good check on the other two.  Unfortunately they seem to have imploded of late, and barely rate a mention...

Not that I was a fan of the party, but I did think having someone lurking in the corner, ready to pounce if any of the others drop the ball was a good way to ensure the two major parties at least stayed on course, if only a little...

Ulthar -

an America divided into two countries would have been so pre-occupied with "going another round" of North versus South that I don't see the country re-uniting.  European powers would have courted the two sections separately - the French and British most likely sticking with the Confederates, their cotton suppliers.  The newborn German Empire would have probably responded by reaching out to the Northern States, and if those friendships cemented into alliances, World War I would have ravaged America as well as Europe.  Certainly America would not have been in a position to save Europe from itself.  And while the Confederacy would have almost certainly abolished slavery eventually, the treatment and social status of blacks would have been even worse in that timeline than it was in ours.

Short version, the right side won.

I don't often get into political discussions, and for good reason: I see things from too many different sides and usually end up arguing with myself. I can in at least one respect agree with indianasmith's view about Bush--he (Bush) seems like a decent, average guy doing the best he can. I don't think Bush is necessarily the problem; I personally think the bigger problem has been the people he has around him (**coughCheneycough**) who are much more politically savvy than he is and who heavily influence him. Yes, Bush is ultimately responsible, but it would seem that this administration has let the VP run the country while the Prez takes the heat.

As for term limits, I don't have as strong an opinion as CheezeFlix. I do think it is definitely time to clean House (& Senate). One of the funniest things I have heard in any campaign was Ted Kennedy coming out in support of Obama, claiming that we need a change of leadership. Yeah, Teddy, we do; step down and let someone take your place, hmm? I think an alternative to term limits that would have much of the same effect (at least in the government spending department) would be legislation that would prevent lawmakers from adding anything to a bill that is not directly related to the main subject of the bill. In other words, if you are presenting a bill to build a new interstate highway, you can't sneak in there a clause that would shunt millions of dollars to your constituency to build a new court house. Or even one to improve the roads in your home state. That would prevent much of the porkbarrel spending that goes on today, thereby also making it unnecessary for a president to veto good legislation because it is so bogged down with add-ons. I guess this idea is similar to the line-item veto, but coming at it from the other side.

I think the handwriting was on the wall - slavery was on it's way out, and with it, the South's economy.  I'm not sure England and France would have wanted the bail the South out to the degree it would have been needed;  you may be right.  I think the "second phase" of the war would have been purely economic.

It is the nature of Southern culture to avoid, at almost all costs, outsiders 'ruling' the local boys.  The Scotch, Irish and Scotch-Irish influences in the South are strong, very strong.  This culture plays a BIG part of why I would suggest "help" from the British and French may not have been as influential as you assert. 

That said, the Irish don't have that great a history of governing themselves. There has always been a TON of infighting in Ireland.  The stereotype of "fighting Irish" is not unfounded.  So, I doubt the Southern Culture would have allowed much stability in the Confederate States (the war unified them to a degree in a cause...once that group dynamic is gone, the internal fighting can begin).

So, my speculation is that in the period after the Civil War, say about 50 years or so (let's use WWI as a boundary, which would be a good "trigger" for reunification), the South would become what we now call a Third World country - poor economy,  unstable leadership.  As the Northern industrial base continues to generate wealth and stability, there would have remained only a "reason" to step in and help...with a price.

This is all speculation, though.  It is fun to think about - nothing more.

Have you ever read the book "The Cousins Wars" by Kevin Phillips?  I think you would find it fascinating.  Phillips' basic assertion is that the British Civil War under Cromwell, The American Revolution and the American Civil War are all three 'battles' is the same continuous war.  The underlying cause of this continuous war is religious in nature - bascially what we could call religious conservatives vs religious liberals; if you look at his timeline, a battle every 100 years or so,  we are due for another bout.

The players in this war are what he dubs "Anglo-Americans."  He does not view the British as separate people from Americans, even now.

It's a very interesting thesis.


I've said this before, and I'll stick to it.  I think from a moral perspective (slavery), that point cannot be argued.  From a 10th Amendment perspective, well, the Civil War destroyed what was left of the 10th Amendment (already weakened by 1860).  I am not as convinced as you are that that fact has been good for our nation.

Is it fair to say you would describe yourself as a Federalist?

My strong opinion on term limits comes from the fact were I live we have some lifer congressional reps (Mitch McConnell, Ed Whitfield) that have done little if anything to improve the quality of life, i.e. jobs. I live in far, far western KY and we call it political Siberia, as the ONLY TIME you see any of our reps, state or federal is during an election year. The town I live near had a larger population in 1890 than it does today ... why jobs are going to Mexico, China etc. and no new jobs are coming in. Only after decades of saying a road here or a road there would improve commerce did they final build a road and a few businesses have moved in, but the road is not finished and likely will not be for 10 years, 10 years? We sent a man to the moon in less time. Anyway that's local crap that gives me a national attitude.

Derf - Ted Kennedy would be in jail today if he wasn't a Kennedy. He is a prime example of being there to long. And I agree Bush hasn't been as bad many would like to portray, tax cuts work and entitlements don't. I didn't agree with him on immigration but faced with what he has been faced with, he's done a good job and history will tell. It's easy to blame Bush, but some folks forget he's not the only guy/gal in Washington.   

Ulthar - definitely I would have sided with the Federalists!!  Truthfully, the more fully and carefully I study the lives of Jefferson and Hamilton, the more tarnished my view of Jefferson becomes.  Hamilton was far from perfect, and Jefferson's influence was needed to put the brakes on his excesses, but by and large, Hamilton had a far more realistic view of the way the world worked.

Funny that came up, I was just teaching about Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson, and the 1796 election today!

Interesting.  Going back a little farther than the actual framers, where does John Locke fit into your perspective?  I ask because I think the Southern Culture aspect I spoke of could be argued to be more than just a little Lockian.  There's definitely a "Don't Tread On Me" mentality that is ingrained down here, and I think it is that more than anything that pushes the "South Will Rise Again" and "War of Northern Aggression" type attitudes - attitudes that are definitely NOT of the mind that the "right side won the war."  It is THIS aspect that causes people, Southerners, to say that the war was not about slavery (while they conveniently forget that slavery WAS the issue of disagreement between Washington Rules and Each State Rules Itself).

Locke was a guiding principle behind both sides I think.  The whole Social Contract view of government pervaded Jefferson's writing.  It was the South's inability to grasp that the "natural rights" doctrine must apply to everyone that let them simultaneously argue for slavery and liberty and never see the inherent contradiction in that position . . .

I voted for W twice, only because of what the alternatives were.   Thank goodness that bonehead is leaving.

with the exception of ron paul,  all the candidates seem to be running for the president of the america of 10 or twenty years ago.  stayng on the offensive in the war on terror and giving americans health insurance are laudable goals but they are simply not feasible when we are

1.in the middle of two wars, neither of which look like they are ending soon.

2.  in a recession more or less

3.  have a joke-ola dollar that is not even as strong as the freakin vietnamese DONG

4.  have borrowed taxed inflated and otherwise spent ourselves into massive massive debt the likes of which the world has never seen.



the next president does not need to be uplifting, market savvy, militarily courageous or anything else.  they need to know how to cut spending and say no to people who have been receiving those government dollars.