The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: tombogan03884 on October 22, 2010, 05:00:48 PM
-
I recently received a survey from the Heritage Foundation. One of the questions they asked was to name 3 politicians I respected, and why.
I left the answer blank, I could only come up with 2 and I think the answers will at first stun you.
1- Adolf Hitler
2- Rahm Emmanuel
No kidding,
Think about it, first, the question asked about the ones I respected, not necessarily ones I agree with. The most skill application of "the system" regardless of ideology.
Hitler, an Austrian, gained German citizenship for his service in WWI, then lost it, and served 9 months for treason after the failed "Beer Hall Putsch". He then proceeded to not only regain German citizenship, but also to use the democratic process to gain absolute power , with every step of the journey being carried out with in the legal political frame work, and consistent approval of the voters.
History remembers him as a monster, but he should be given credit as one of, if not the most accomplished political operators" of the 20th Century.
Emmanuel, (and now that I think of it, David Axelrod ) deserves equal recognition for his skill in practicing the art of "politics".
They took an unknown 1st term Senator, who had found it necessary to surrender his Law license , had associates that included, a convicted child molester, who was a ranking member of CPUSA, Frank Marshal Davis, at least 2 domestic terrorist bombers, Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadette Doorn, a convicted racketeer, Tony Rezco, and found it necessary to conceal all his personal information, even his birth certificate from public view , had no genuine accomplishments or experience, and espoused openly Marxist idea's, redistributing the wealth.
They got this guy elected President of the United States ! :o
If that does not qualify them as the most skilled political operators of the 21st century I don't know what would.
OK FQ, Bring it on ;D
-
In the context you propose, Richard Nixon, aka "Pitbull Of Politics" could qualify,especially in the early days of his Congressional career, as well as Carl Rove getting GWB elected.
Than there was always LBJ, and "the treatment"....
(http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm182/twyacht/lbjrichardrussell.jpg)
-
Yes you're a slacker. You forgot Karl Rove, who got a blithering idiot elected. You forgot Alynski. You forgot Atwater and Carville. You forgot perhaps the greatest of them all, Mark Hanna who ginned up the war with Spain and got William McKinley elected in 1896 without the blowhard's "ever leaving his front porch". Emmanuel is good, but not that good. Hitler doesn't qualify because he used violence. That's a whole different sport. Seriously, check out Hanna, if you want a true evil genius.
FQ13
-
I'm still looking for one I respect.
Its been hours and I still can't find one.
:P
-
Darth Deadfish Rahm, pales in comparison to Goebells
(http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm182/twyacht/goebbelsspeech2.jpg)
You think Carl Rove or Rahm is "respectable"?
We can discuss Woodrow Wilson, and his "model" for propaganda, that was "respected" by Goebells further along.... ::)
Respect is a "tricky" word. It involves removing one's personal opinion, and simply looking at a given task with an ultimate end.
The PC folk won't get it., just ask Juan Williams...
-
Darth Deadfish Rahm, pales in comparison to Goebells
(http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm182/twyacht/goebbelsspeech2.jpg)
You think Carl Rove or Rahm is "respectable"?
We can discuss Woodrow Wilson, and his "model" for propaganda, that was "respected" by Goebells further along.... ::)
Respect is a "tricky" word. It involves removing one's personal opinion, and simply looking at a given task with an ultimate end.
The PC folk won't get it., just ask Juan Williams...
Exactly my point TW ;D
FQ, I'll give you Johnson, he got through everything Kennedy couldn't by being an arm twister. But Alinsky himself never got any one elected, although any one who has an interest in politics should pretty much live by his "Rule's for Radicals".
As for the Spanish war, that was more due to the sensationalism of Pulitzer and Hearst. Hearst is often quoted as telling Fredrick Remington "You supply the illustrations, I'll supply the war."
Your "Mark Hanna" is not to be found here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War
If any one in government should get credit for, as you put it, "ginning up the war with Spain", it would be a Jr. Asst. Secretary of the Navy who among other steps relocated the US Asiatic squadron to Hong Kong, and got an aging Commodore named George Dewey appointed to it's command.
As for the rest, Nixon was OK, but he got caught, Lee Atwater, Dana Carville and Carl Rove are just based on your liberal prejudice.
And just what is wrong with political violence ? For a political Science professor you are sure naive.
The trick is knowing when and where to apply violence, Burning the Riechstag just before the election, very smart, New Black panthers in front of polling station, in the day of video and camera phones it is very dumb.
As for you boy Hanna,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Hanna
Manager of campaigns
Hanna made a transition into politics during the 1880s, and in 1888, he managed Ohio Senator John Sherman's unsuccessful effort to gain the Republican presidential nomination. Rep. William McKinley had tried unsuccessfully to win the position of Speaker of the House in 1891, losing to Rep. Thomas B. Reed of Maine, who was backed by Theodore Roosevelt. McKinley then turned his attentions to running for governor of Ohio. Hanna helped McKinley win the 1891 and 1893 elections for governor and became his chief advisor.
McKinley's strongest competitor for the Republican nomination in 1896 was Speaker Reed. After Hanna attended a speech Reed gave in Washington, he realized that Reed lacked the presidential appearance or stature McKinley possessed. After McKinley won the 1896 Republican nomination for president, Hanna, as chairman of the Republican National Committee, raised an unprecedented $3.5 million for McKinley's campaign, in which he ran on the gold standard, high tariffs, pluralism, and renewed prosperity. Most of the money came from corporations who feared that William Jennings Bryan's Free Silver policy would limit their economic power. By October the Democrats realized they were losing the battle for campaign funding and targeted Hanna as the arch-villain who threatened to put corporate interests ahead of the national interest.[5] As McKinley was highly likeable, Hanna became a target of Bryan's supporters, especially William Randolph Hearst and his New York Journal.
Hanna's campaign employed 1400 people, who concentrated a flood of pamphlets, leaflets, posters, and stump speakers. McKinley defeated Bryan by an electoral vote of 271 to 176. At the time, it was the most expensive campaign ever in U.S. politics, with the McKinley campaign outspending Bryan's by nearly 12 to 1. Today it is considered the forerunner of the modern political campaign for its adroit use of publicity, its overall national plan, its strategic use of issues, and especially the candidate's own speech making.
-
Oh, Please!
Don't confuse effectiveness with respect. Everyone on this list is an asshole who was very effective but they do not deserve respect. You might be able to appreciate their effectiveness but, if for on second, you actually respect them, then you aren't worth the powder it would take to drop you. These clowns are the reason there is a need for a hell.
Respect if reserved for a man like this http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/leebondhus (http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/leebondhus).
We will now return you to your regularly scheduled bickering.
-
My point Tom is that Hanna was the founder of the modern campaign :P. Money, endorsements, direct mail, bumper sticker issues, managed media and the like. He pioneered the mess. Three isusses, lots of favors, lots of cash, and a volunteer network. It had never been done that way before.
FQ13
-
I agree with Ichiban, respect should in no way be extended to manipulating scum that takes advantage of people with misleading physiological B.S., There should only be a special place in hell for them! I reserve respect only for those who display honor, ethics and honesty! If those qualities are not there, then no respect is given!
-
I agree with Ichiban, respect should in no way be extended to manipulating scum that takes advantage of people with misleading physiological B.S., There should only be a special place in hell for them! I reserve respect only for those who display honor, ethics and honesty! If those qualities are not there, then no respect is given!
You are confusing respect with admiration. Admiration is calling a man a role model. Respect is acknowledging his talents. Two different things.
FQ13
-
You are confusing respect with admiration. Admiration is calling a man a role model. Respect is acknowledging his talents. Two different things.
FQ13
So much for arguing with you, you are making my points for me. ::)
Ichiban , and jp1 are wrong on this, no matter what endeavor you undertake, whether it be medical research, or mass murder , if you strive to be the most outstanding in your field your worthy of respect.
You guys need to re-read Sun Tsu.
-
I guess this would come down to which definition of “respect” you are talking about.
1. a particular, detail, or point (usually prec. by in ): to differ in some respect.
2. relation or reference: inquiries with respect to a route.
3. esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability: I have great respect for her judgment.
4. deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment: respect for a suspect's right to counsel; to show respect for the flag; respect for the elderly.
5. the condition of being esteemed or honored: to be held in respect.
6. respects, a formal expression or gesture of greeting, esteem, or friendship: Give my respects to your parents.
7. favor or partiality.
8. Archaic . a consideration.
9. to hold in esteem or honor: I cannot respect a cheat.
10. to show regard or consideration for: to respect someone's rights.
11. to refrain from intruding upon or interfering with: to respect a person's privacy.
12. to relate or have reference to.
13. in respect of, in reference to; in regard to; concerning.
14. in respect that, Archaic . because of; since.
15. pay one's respects,
to visit in order to welcome, greet, etc.: We paid our respects to the new neighbors.
to express one's sympathy, esp. to survivors following a death: We paid our respects to the family.
16. with respect to, referring to; concerning: with respect to your latest request.
-
I guess this would come down to which definition of “respect” you are talking about.
1. a particular, detail, or point (usually prec. by in ): to differ in some respect.
2. relation or reference: inquiries with respect to a route.
3. esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability: I have great respect for her judgment. Guile, stealth, imagination, planning ability, stuff like that.
4. deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment: respect for a suspect's right to counsel; to show respect for the flag; respect for the elderly.
5. the condition of being esteemed or honored: to be held in respect.
6. respects, a formal expression or gesture of greeting, esteem, or friendship: Give my respects to your parents.
7. favor or partiality.
8. Archaic . a consideration.
9. to hold in esteem or honor: I cannot respect a cheat. unless he uses some method that requires skill or ingenuity.
10. to show regard or consideration for: to respect someone's rights.
11. to refrain from intruding upon or interfering with: to respect a person's privacy.
12. to relate or have reference to.
13. in respect of, in reference to; in regard to; concerning.
14. in respect that, Archaic . because of; since.
15. pay one's respects,
to visit in order to welcome, greet, etc.: We paid our respects to the new neighbors.
to express one's sympathy, esp. to survivors following a death: We paid our respects to the family.
16. with respect to, referring to; concerning: with respect to your latest request.
Does that help you better understand my thinking ?
Rommel, one of the most capable field commanders of modern times, but it was us he was shooting at, does that diminish his ability as a General ?
-
Politicians, by their own actions, are lying, cheating, scumbag, manipulating assholes who wouldn't make a good mole on a Sailors ass!
Respect from me takes a bit of work and damn few have earned it.....
-
Y'all are hung up on semantics. The point Tom was making when he started this kerfluffle (AND YES ITS YOUR FAULT TOM! ;D), was simply this. Some folks are just good at what they do. I can call acknowledging that respect, regognition or Bob, but regardless, its a necessary form of "Bob" when remarking on the mark they made in the world.
FQ13who defers all future complaints to Tom, as, as always, its all his fault. >:(
-
Here is a definition of respect:
esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability: I have great respect for her judgment.
As stated it can be for a person or a particular trait or ability of that person.
You can respect a particular ability of a person without respecting that person as an individual.
Pete Rose comes to mind as an example. You can have great respect for his baseball playing ability and determination at the game and still not like him as a person at all.
-
Here is a definition of respect:
esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability: I have great respect for her judgment.
As stated it can be for a person or a particular trait or ability of that person.
You can respect a particular ability of a person without respecting that person as an individual.
Pete Rose comes to mind as an example. You can have great respect for his baseball playing ability and determination at the game and still not like him as a person at all.
Exactly what I mean.
-
Here is a definition of respect:
esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability: I have great respect for her judgment.
As stated it can be for a person or a particular trait or ability of that person.
You can respect a particular ability of a person without respecting that person as an individual.
Pete Rose comes to mind as an example. You can have great respect for his baseball playing ability and determination at the game and still not like him as a person at all.
Yep. Respect his ability but that doesn't translate to respect for him.
-
Yep. Respect his ability but that doesn't translate to respect for him.
OK, you understand my thinking, the rest of our disagreement is , as FQ put it, merely semantics that don't really effect the point I'm trying to make.
Those 2 guys did what they did very skillfully.
To return to an earlier comment, the reason I left out Goebbels was because he just parroted the Party line as handed down by Hitler.
It was Hitler who said a lie told often enough becomes the truth. Also, Goebbels had the advantage of complete control of the media, no internet to spoil his message, another advantage was that the German people desperately wanted to believe.
-
another advantage was that the German people desperately wanted to believe.
Hope & change?
-
Hope & change?
Exactly "Hope & Change",.... a demoralized country, faced with unpayable reparations, sanctions, trade restrictions, created out of nothing,.... the most technological advanced weapons platforms, with a country that backed them. Respectable? yes.
Not that it was the right thing, but what an accomplishment.
Hindsight, and history shows the mistake that direction ultimately lead,.... Germans, above all others, know their mistakes of the past political regimes. Perhaps that's why I respect Chancellor Merkel now,for rejecting multiculturalism, and rejecting the EU bailout proposals.
There are folks, old men, to this day, who HATE General Patton, BUT they respect him, and what he accomplished.
As my Grandfather would have said: "Piss On Them" (Japanese,Germans),....there will never be any type of respect given to them, and I can respect what he went through, although, I will never know. His respect for his decision has been earned.
In modern politics, it becomes a gray area. I will never respect Darth Rahm, or the Emperor David Axelrod, personally, but the con job, snow job, scam, they pulled off getting BHO elected was downright brilliant.
Hopefully, we can return to respecting what folks like Madison, Adams, Franklin, Washington did.
-
That's a "nail-head hit" twyacht!
"Hope and Change" has been a political tool for many many years! From Mao to Hitler, and Stalin to BHO!
(and many more before them!)
BHO's plan was brilliant, until his promises fell apart, just like those before him!
-
Actually, it wasn't even Hitler who began German rearmament, General Hans Von Seekt did in the Early 1920's.
The "commercial treaty" of 1922 between Wiemar (Germany) and the Soviet Union carried clauses that allowed the Riechswehr (Army ) to set up training centers on Soviet soil, not covered by the Treaty of Versailles, in exchange the Germans supplied factories that eventually built the tanks that defeated them.
They had similar agreements with Sweden and several other countries.
In fact, when Hitler assumed power in 1933 the German army was already 3 times it's allowed 100,000 man strength.
-
Gee, do ya think we're a little affraid of the ANTICHRIST now? So many insurrections, so little time! ::)
Religion aside, I think we're ALL a little scared of "The Next Boogeyman" that will try to destroy this Great nation, aren't you?
-
Gee, do ya think we're a little affraid of the ANTICHRIST now? So many insurrections, so little time! ::)
Religion aside, I think we're ALL a little scared of "The Next Boogeyman" that will try to destroy this Great nation, aren't you?
With good reason.
We laid the ground work for disaster on the political/economic front, when we began to abandon the rules of the Constitutional Republic, in favor of the "instant gratification" of democracy.
At the same time we are laying the ground work for natural disaster with our total dependence on electronics, computer chips and a fragile unprotected electrical grid .
The solar flares of 2012 are being predicted to be the most severe since the 1880's. Back then they built up so much energy that telegraph wires set their poles on fire.
How do you think that will work out with a society dependent on computer chips that are so delicate they have to be kept in anti static baggies until installation ? More, we're partially shielded by the atmosphere, our satellites aren't. They are toast, no more communications. land lines may hold up locally but the sheer mass of modern communications would immediately overwhelm the system.
Back to your point, either way you look at it we are heading for a disaster,the system that history shows always follows the chaos of a failed democracy is Dictatorship.
Best bet would be to make sure it's "my guy" who gets the job. ::)
-
With good reason.
We laid the ground work for disaster on the political/economic front, when we began to abandon the rules of the Constitutional Republic, in favor of the "instant gratification" of democracy.
At the same time we are laying the ground work for natural disaster with our total dependence on electronics, computer chips and a fragile unprotected electrical grid .
The solar flares of 2012 are being predicted to be the most severe since the 1880's. Back then they built up so much energy that telegraph wires set their poles on fire.
How do you think that will work out with a society dependent on computer chips that are so delicate they have to be kept in anti static baggies until installation ? More, we're partially shielded by the atmosphere, our satellites aren't. They are toast, no more communications. land lines may hold up locally but the sheer mass of modern communications would immediately overwhelm the system.
Back to your point, either way you look at it we are heading for a disaster,the system that history shows always follows the chaos of a failed democracy is Dictatorship.
Best bet would be to make sure it's "my guy" who gets the job. ::)
Agreed with the above, except the dictatorship bit. I hope self interest and the lessons of history will save us from that, though I am not overly confident. You say you want it to be "your guy" in charge. Me? The only person I would trust with that much power would be myself. The one thing I share in common with George Washington is that when it comes to that kind of power, I don't trust myself either. I hope a politically crucial majority will feel the same way.
FQ13
-
Agreed with the above, except the dictatorship bit. I hope self interest and the lessons of history will save us from that, though I am not overly confident. You say you want it to be "your guy" in charge. Me? The only person I would trust with that much power would be myself. The one thing I share in common with George Washington is that when it comes to that kind of power, I don't trust myself either. I hope a politically crucial majority will feel the same way.
FQ13
I expect we will have more than one definition of a "politically crucial majority" here, particularly in regards to the methods and tools it uses to ensure the success of it's ideology. "Majority" will likely mean "Enough to get the job done".
-
Attila the Hun....Lucius Sulla....Lorenzo di Medici.....look them up.....
-
When democracies fail they descend into chaos, with the previously favored and divided sub groups fighting for the scraps of resources that remain. like in Somalia or Iraq after the fall of Saddam.
The only effective method of restoring order is for one group to achieve the ability to mass locally overwhelming force and impose it at the point of a gun.
This means that whether it calls itself a "ruling council" or what ever, one Person or group will have to govern by decree, and back them up with force. At a minimum until order is restored, but more likely until some level of prosperity has been re achieved. That is when people stop worrying about food and start thinking about their rights or lack of.
Attila the Hun....Lucius Sulla....Lorenzo di Medici.....look them up.....
As a tribal leader I'm not sure that Attila belongs on the list, he was tightly controlled by his customs and beliefs, so while he will never be considered a "republican", (the philosophy, not the Party ) I don't think he qualifies as a true autocrat either.
-
As a tribal leader I'm not sure that Attila belongs on the list, he was tightly controlled by his customs and beliefs, so while he will never be considered a "republican", (the philosophy, not the Party ) I don't think he qualifies as a true autocrat either.
Looking at the way he played Rome against itself and its allies and his ultimate "victory," I'd say he was the epitome of a politician....
-
Looking at the way he played Rome against itself and its allies and his ultimate "victory," I'd say he was the epitome of a politician....
You must be thinking of Alaric, Attila got his ass kicked by the Romans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Catalaunian_Plains
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaric_I