Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I'm talking about the Panetta thing. And I've seen it before. I just don't get this thing where people say there's something inherently wrong about a former member of a Presidential staff criticizing his or her former boss while that boss is still is in office.

To me, what's dishonorable is if you're in a job and you undermine the organization you work for by sneaking around, doing anonymous leaks, etc. If you resign then, to me, there is nothing dishonorable about expressing your opinion that your former boss the President screwed up. In fact, it'd be dishonorable NOT to do that if that's what you think.

To me if you're in a job you're part of the team and as long as you're on the team you suck up your personal views if you have to. And if it ever gets so bad that you just cannot tolerate what's going on you should resign. In fact if you think that what's going on is REALLY bad you SHOULD resign then you SHOULD tell people that what's going on was really bad.

I just don't get this thing about some people thinking former staffers shouldn't criticize a President just because he (or someday she) is still in office. In fact if you really feel he or she's a screw up you owe it to your country to speak up about it.

To me the problem is that not enough people do that.

JohnStOnge wrote:I'm talking about the Panetta thing. And I've seen it before. I just don't get this thing where people say there's something inherently wrong about a former member of a Presidential staff criticizing his or her former boss while that boss is still is in office.

To me, what's dishonorable is if you're in a job and you undermine the organization you work for by sneaking around, doing anonymous leaks, etc. If you resign then, to me, there is nothing dishonorable about expressing your opinion that your former boss the President screwed up. In fact, it'd be dishonorable NOT to do that if that's what you think.

To me if you're in a job you're part of the team and as long as you're on the team you suck up your personal views if you have to. And if it ever gets so bad that you just cannot tolerate what's going on you should resign. In fact if you think that what's going on is REALLY bad you SHOULD resign then you SHOULD tell people that what's going on was really bad.

I just don't get this thing about some people thinking former staffers shouldn't criticize a President just because he (or someday she) is still in office. In fact if you really feel he or she's a screw up you owe it to your country to speak up about it.

To me the problem is that not enough people do that.

There's nothing wrong with it.

/thread.

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:I'm talking about the Panetta thing. And I've seen it before. I just don't get this thing where people say there's something inherently wrong about a former member of a Presidential staff criticizing his or her former boss while that boss is still is in office.

To me, what's dishonorable is if you're in a job and you undermine the organization you work for by sneaking around, doing anonymous leaks, etc. If you resign then, to me, there is nothing dishonorable about expressing your opinion that your former boss the President screwed up. In fact, it'd be dishonorable NOT to do that if that's what you think.

To me if you're in a job you're part of the team and as long as you're on the team you suck up your personal views if you have to. And if it ever gets so bad that you just cannot tolerate what's going on you should resign. In fact if you think that what's going on is REALLY bad you SHOULD resign then you SHOULD tell people that what's going on was really bad.

I just don't get this thing about some people thinking former staffers shouldn't criticize a President just because he (or someday she) is still in office. In fact if you really feel he or she's a screw up you owe it to your country to speak up about it.

To me the problem is that not enough people do that.

There's nothing wrong with it.

/thread.

Oh no you don't, kalmy.

I'll be the judge of this.

There's nothing wrong with it.

/thread.

Well crap if you two think there's nothing wrong with it maybe I need to think about it some more.

There's nothing wrong with it.

John,
One of the oldest political mantra's is "never criticize your own party"
We see that here on this board like CRAZY

To me its the same as saying: Always vote straight ticket

Both philosophies come from the same place...
and both are ridiculous (frankly)

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:I'm talking about the Panetta thing. And I've seen it before. I just don't get this thing where people say there's something inherently wrong about a former member of a Presidential staff criticizing his or her former boss while that boss is still is in office.

To me, what's dishonorable is if you're in a job and you undermine the organization you work for by sneaking around, doing anonymous leaks, etc. If you resign then, to me, there is nothing dishonorable about expressing your opinion that your former boss the President screwed up. In fact, it'd be dishonorable NOT to do that if that's what you think.

To me if you're in a job you're part of the team and as long as you're on the team you suck up your personal views if you have to. And if it ever gets so bad that you just cannot tolerate what's going on you should resign. In fact if you think that what's going on is REALLY bad you SHOULD resign then you SHOULD tell people that what's going on was really bad.

I just don't get this thing about some people thinking former staffers shouldn't criticize a President just because he (or someday she) is still in office. In fact if you really feel he or she's a screw up you owe it to your country to speak up about it.

To me the problem is that not enough people do that.

There's nothing wrong with it.

/thread.

Unless he's black. Then it's racist.

/thread

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
There's nothing wrong with it.

/thread.

Unless he's black. Then it's racist.

/thread

Well then...color me racist...

Chizzang wrote:John,
One of the oldest political mantra's is "never criticize your own party"
We see that here on this board like CRAZY

To me its the same as saying: Always vote straight ticket

Both philosophies come from the same place...
and both are ridiculous (frankly)

I like "Follow the Money".

Chizzang wrote:John,
One of the oldest political mantra's is "never criticize your own party"
We see that here on this board like CRAZY

To me its the same as saying: Always vote straight ticket

Both philosophies come from the same place...
and both are ridiculous (frankly)

I disagree with you about the "straight ticket" thing because of the system we have nationally. There are two major parties and which one holds power is indeed important to the direction of the country. Whether Democrats or Republicans hold majorities in Congress does make a difference. Also which Party the President comes from. That's because the nature of the two parties governs who can get nominated.

It's like if you're in Louisiana contemplating who you're going to vote for in the Senate race. The reality is that which party is in control of the Senate is way more important than the individual candidates involved. A majority Democratic Senate means Harry Reid in charge. A majority Republican Senate means Mitch McConnel is in charge. Huge difference. Plus there's the Supreme Court thing. Which Party is in the majority makes a huge difference there.

The reality is that which party is in power is more important than characteristics of individual candidates. It is what it is. That's the way it is in the United States today.

I personally wish it wasn't like that. I think we'd be better off if we didn't have political parties at all. A lot of people disagree with that but it's what I think. However, we do have political parties and we do have two that are dominant under circumstances where which of the two had the advantage makes a huge difference.

Both philosophies come from the same place...

No they don't. A recent example is the Affordable Care Act. Whether you like it or don't like it there is no way that would've happened if the Democrats had not been in control of both Houses of Congress as well as the Presidency. And it's huge. It's a very significant thing.

One big mistake I think a lot of people make is going along with the idea that which of the two major parties is in power does not make a difference. It makes a HUGE difference.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Chizzang wrote:John,
One of the oldest political mantra's is "never criticize your own party"
We see that here on this board like CRAZY

To me its the same as saying: Always vote straight ticket

Both philosophies come from the same place...
and both are ridiculous (frankly)

I disagree with you about the "straight ticket" thing because of the system we have nationally. There are two major parties and which one holds power is indeed important to the direction of the country. Whether Democrats or Republicans hold majorities in Congress does make a difference. Also which Party the President comes from. That's because the nature of the two parties governs who can get nominated.

It's like if you're in Louisiana contemplating who you're going to vote for in the Senate race. The reality is that which party is in control of the Senate is way more important than the individual candidates involved. A majority Democratic Senate means Harry Reid in charge. A majority Republican Senate means Mitch McConnel is in charge. Huge difference. Plus there's the Supreme Court thing. Which Party is in the majority makes a huge difference there.

The reality is that which party is in power is more important than characteristics of individual candidates. It is what it is. That's the way it is in the United States today.

I personally wish it wasn't like that. I think we'd be better off if we didn't have political parties at all. A lot of people disagree with that but it's what I think. However, we do have political parties and we do have two that are dominant under circumstances where which of the two had the advantage makes a huge difference.

What's quaint is that you think there's a difference between Reid and McConnell.

What's quaint is that you think there's a difference between Reid and McConnell.

You know very well that there is. I suppose you can say that the difference doesn't matter to you but you know there is a difference in terms of what moves and what doesn't move.

kalm wrote:
What's quaint is that you think there's a difference between Reid and McConnell.

There is. Reid doesn't know shit about how to help the people he supposedly is representing.

CAA Flagship wrote:

kalm wrote:
What's quaint is that you think there's a difference between Reid and McConnell.

There is. Reid doesn't know shit about how to help the people he supposedly is representing.

Seriously, just stop. This is exactly what's wrong with the system.

JohnStOnge wrote:

What's quaint is that you think there's a difference between Reid and McConnell.

You know very well that there is. I suppose you can say that the difference doesn't matter to you but you know there is a difference in terms of what moves and what doesn't move.

No…there isn't. I realize this might be a harsh reality for you, but there really isn't. They both answer to the same constituency.

CAA Flagship wrote:

kalm wrote:
What's quaint is that you think there's a difference between Reid and McConnell.

There is. McConnell doesn't know **** about how to help the people he supposedly is representing.

kalm wrote: Seriously, just stop. This is exactly what's wrong with the system.

kalm wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: There is. Reid doesn't know shit about how to help the people he supposedly is representing.

Seriously, just stop. This is exactly what's wrong with the system.

Exactly. How he was re-elected should be investigated. He should have been sentenced, not re-elected.
The system needs an overhaul.

Democrats under Bush II: This is the worst President who ever lived!

Democrats under Obama [Responding to GOP complaints about Obama's performance]: We won. Shut up!

JohnStOnge wrote:

Chizzang wrote:John,
One of the oldest political mantra's is "never criticize your own party"
We see that here on this board like CRAZY

To me its the same as saying: Always vote straight ticket

Both philosophies come from the same place...
and both are ridiculous (frankly)

I disagree with you about the "straight ticket" thing because of the system we have nationally. There are two major parties and which one holds power is indeed important to the direction of the country. Whether Democrats or Republicans hold majorities in Congress does make a difference. Also which Party the President comes from. That's because the nature of the two parties governs who can get nominated.

It's like if you're in Louisiana contemplating who you're going to vote for in the Senate race. The reality is that which party is in control of the Senate is way more important than the individual candidates involved. A majority Democratic Senate means Harry Reid in charge. A majority Republican Senate means Mitch McConnel is in charge. Huge difference. Plus there's the Supreme Court thing. Which Party is in the majority makes a huge difference there.

The reality is that which party is in power is more important than characteristics of individual candidates. It is what it is. That's the way it is in the United States today.

I personally wish it wasn't like that. I think we'd be better off if we didn't have political parties at all. A lot of people disagree with that but it's what I think. However, we do have political parties and we do have two that are dominant under circumstances where which of the two had the advantage makes a huge difference.

Okay so obviously you're a straight ticket voter... So you're going to take issue with me calling it ridiculous

No…there isn't. I realize this might be a harsh reality for you, but there really isn't. They both answer to the same constituency.

I just mentioned the Affordable Care Act as a prominent example of a case in which who controlled Congress made a difference. If McConnell had been Senate Majority Leader at the time it might never have even gotten a vote in the Senate. And if it had gotten a vote it would have been voted down because McConnel being Majority Leader means Republicans in the majority.

Another example was recently provided by Liberals who wanted Ginsberg to retire from the Supreme Court because they're worried the Republicans will capture the Senate Majority and that would impact who Obama could get through the Senate confirmation process.

What if you're in the coal industry and you want Congress to do something to rein in the EPA's assault? You'll have to hope to get a Republican President in 2016 but you're also going to need a Republican Congress in place. If you're in the coal industry you DEFINITELY want Reid out and McConnel in as Majority Leader. That in itself won't be everything you need but it's a necessary condition for getting there.

So on and so forth. I can't believe people say it doesn't make a difference. It's like one of these things that sounds good to say but it just isn't true. Maybe neither one is anywhere close to a perfect choice but thinking it makes no difference is just obviously wrong.

This thread epitomizes the irresistible force meeting the immovable object.

/thread

Ivytalk wrote:This thread epitomizes the irresistible force meeting the immovable object.

/thread

A-Men Brother

JohnStOnge wrote:I'm talking about the Panetta thing. And I've seen it before. I just don't get this thing where people say there's something inherently wrong about a former member of a Presidential staff criticizing his or her former boss while that boss is still is in office.

To me, what's dishonorable is if you're in a job and you undermine the organization you work for by sneaking around, doing anonymous leaks, etc. If you resign then, to me, there is nothing dishonorable about expressing your opinion that your former boss the President screwed up. In fact, it'd be dishonorable NOT to do that if that's what you think.

To me if you're in a job you're part of the team and as long as you're on the team you suck up your personal views if you have to. And if it ever gets so bad that you just cannot tolerate what's going on you should resign. In fact if you think that what's going on is REALLY bad you SHOULD resign then you SHOULD tell people that what's going on was really bad.

I just don't get this thing about some people thinking former staffers shouldn't criticize a President just because he (or someday she) is still in office. In fact if you really feel he or she's a screw up you owe it to your country to speak up about it.

To me the problem is that not enough people do that.

The Titan of Tedious rides again.

Toujour enculer le mouche, eh Johhny boy...