PonyFans.com

tick, tick, tick, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1- I see this thread heading down the tubes.

dcpony wrote:

FWMustang wrote:but for the record, you would be for SMU taking on the Clinton Presidential See-Saw & Bordello?

Hmm...Let's see. Off the top of my head. Minus Clinton's ladies problem he presidided over a stronger economy than dubbya, the US was respected around the world, Clinton didn't have incompetent and corrupt cronies assisiting him with running the country into the ground, he didn't falsely claim a country had WMDs and then attack said country in the most volatile part of the world thus making the world less secure, he didn't increase government spending more than LBJ did in his entire administration, he didn't sign off on making torture a signature method of the armed forces, he didn't increase corporate welfare to obscene levels while essentially raising taxes on the middle class, the dollar didn't lose 20-30% of its value against major currencies, and best of all he didn't sit on his [deleted] and watch one of America's greatest cities get destroyed.

I can go on forever...

The bottom line is that Dubbya's more controversial than Clinton or any college football coach. So I don't want Turner playing the controversy card when it comes to this hire.

If you honestly think W is to blame for everything you listed and that none of those results can be traced back to actions, decisions, etc. prior to his administration (and even Clinton's), you're fairly dimwitted and probably believe everything CNN tells you to believe!

By that logic you have to blame everything that happened under Clinton on Bush 1. Maybe Bush 1 was better than we thought.

Nacho wrote:By that logic you have to blame everything that happened under Clinton on Bush 1. Maybe Bush 1 was better than we thought.

so was Cavan apparently.

dcpony, this presidential library argument you keep bringing up really is terrible. while it might politically urk you to see another Bush name taint your alma mater, try to keep in mind the tremendous amount of international scholarship/interest it will bring to the Hilltop and the wonders it will do for our political science/history departments both as a research source and an attractant for better faculty. while Bush and controversy may be synonomous, bringing his library to SMU isn't. i don't think it illustrates any rebellousness in Turner...maybe just deft school stuardship. it makes sense whether you love Bush or abhor him.

"Who wants to be the site holding the documents for one of the most controversial presidencies and one of the most important time periods in the 21st century? Careful, it will attract a lot of attention and scholarly interest..."

[Every university president raises/waves their hand wildly]

dcpony wrote:Minus Clinton's ladies problem ...

By that I hope you mean he didn't choose a hotter chick to blow the leader of the free world. That was his biggest ladies problem.

ML was pretty nasty. A two bagger at least. But then again, look what he had to sleep with every night. I'm surprised he didn't gnaw off his hand.

perunapower wrote:

dcpony wrote:In my opinion Turner crossed the "controversy" line when he invited Dubbya to put his third-rate propaganda machine and book mobile on campus.

He's shown me he's not averse to controversy. So I expect him not to balk on a potentiallly controversial coaching hire.

Ok now that's just stupid. He did not invite the presidential library. We were in a group of three selected by a committee. We could have declined, but why do that? It doesn't matter if you agree with him or not. You get a chance at having pieces of history from one of the most controversial and influential times since the 1960s.

Presidential libraries are not monuments of adoration toward the President himself. They are institutions of research and analysis toward that administration and the events and decisions that took place underneath that administration. Now if the proper materials are not available at this library, I will be upset. As for the policy institute, if you don't think both parties already spew propaganda to save their own behinds then God help you. I don't know exactly what this policy institute is going to do. So if you have some factual basis for your claims, let it be known.

Back to football, we want a coach who can win, but we don't need to sacrifice integrity. Your analogy would be fit if Turner invited Bush to be on a board, to hold forums, or something of that nature. Otherwise, they aren't comparable.

I have no problem with Turner going after the library. But I do have a problem with him not signing off on the best coaching candidate because of a "controversial past"

Have you been to a presidential library? I have. And for the most part the libraries have a museum that emphasize the positive aspects of a presidency. I feel sorry for the person tasked with orgnaizing this museum. I can't wait to see the blown up picture of Dubbya looking out of his window in Airforce One over a destroyed NOLA.

I don't know anything about the policy institute but it's supposed to be modeled after Stanford's Hoover Institute. Dubbya can only hope his institute gets the level of bi-partisan support the Hoover Institute gets.

So you really don't think Dubbya is going to be making appearances, giving speeches and holding forums on campus?

Oh and there's a good chance nobody will be able to see Dubbya's papers for a very long time if he has his way. Hopefully Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) can get his bill passed though early next year that would rescind Dubbya's decree, that I believe keeps his papers under lock and key for twenty years.

I'd rather have a winning football team with a coach with a controversial past than monuments to this joker's legacy of brutality and idiocy.

Turner don't F it up...hire the best guy you possibly can.

perunapower wrote: Now if the proper materials are not available at this library, I will be upset.

Golly, we wouldn't want YOU to be upset. Please don't get upset. What are the "proper" materials we need to get for you so YOU are not upset? There's nothing worse than an UPSET perunapower...

bigdaddy08091 wrote:DCPony, stay strong baby. It will get better, but it will take more than just your post. Stay off the boulevard until changes are made. Don't go to the games untill changes are made. This is your University!

So I guess the new stadium wasn't a change? The Blvd. wasn't a change? Orsini wasn't a change? Firing Bennett wasn't a change? Are we supposed to stay away until the team goes undefeated? You are incorrect. We should show our support in every way possible. Can we make suggestions about how to improve things? Sure. But turning our backs is just ludicrous.

dcpony wrote:I have no problem with Turner going after the library. But I do have a problem with him not signing off on the best coaching candidate because of a "controversial past"

Have you been to a presidential library? I have. And for the most part the libraries have a museum that emphasize the positive aspects of a presidency. I feel sorry for the person tasked with orgnaizing this museum. I can't wait to see the blown up picture of Dubbya looking out of his window in Airforce One over a destroyed NOLA.

I don't know anything about the policy institute but it's supposed to be modeled after Stanford's Hoover Institute. Dubbya can only hope his institute get's the level of bi-partisan support the Hoover Institute gets.

So you really don't think Dubbya is going to be making appearances, giving speeches and holding forums on campus?

Oh and there's a good chance nobody will be able to see Dubbya's papers for a very long time if he has his way. Hopefully Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) can get his bill passed though early next year that would rescind Dubbya's decree, that I believe keeps his papers under lock and key for twenty years.

I'd rather have a winning football team with a coach with a controversial past than monuments to this joker's legacy of brutality and idiocy.

Turner don't F it up...hire the best guy you possibly can.

The Bush Presidential Library and a controversial coach are not comparable. Of course a Presidential Library is going to focus on the positive aspects of that President's term, but it should also allow for the historical analysis of his term and the events that unfolded within his term.

If it's to be modeled after the Hoover Institute (by the way, Hoover was an awful President), then that will be another great addition to the University. Of course, I hope that the important documents are released so this administration can be properly judged by history, instead of propaganda and politics.

Now why does having a successful football program have to be tied to a controversial coach? If a coach has a controversial past is a candidate for the job, then his past should be closely examined and taken into account when seeing if his is suitable for the job, not just overlooked.

perunapower wrote:Of course a Presidential Library is going to focus on the positive aspects of that President's term, but it should also allow for the historical analysis of his term and the events that unfolded within his term.

Boy, that'll be one small library. Maybe we could just have a Dubya reading room over in the undergrad library and put the rest of that money towards hiring Jon Gruden.

Bergermeister wrote:

perunapower wrote: Now if the proper materials are not available at this library, I will be upset.

Golly, we wouldn't want YOU to be upset. Please don't get upset. What are the "proper" materials we need to get for you so YOU are not upset? There's nothing worse than an UPSET perunapower...

Haha. There is nothing worse than an upset me. Feel my wrath. Mwah ha ha!

perunapower wrote:

dcpony wrote:I have no problem with Turner going after the library. But I do have a problem with him not signing off on the best coaching candidate because of a "controversial past"

Have you been to a presidential library? I have. And for the most part the libraries have a museum that emphasize the positive aspects of a presidency. I feel sorry for the person tasked with orgnaizing this museum. I can't wait to see the blown up picture of Dubbya looking out of his window in Airforce One over a destroyed NOLA.

I don't know anything about the policy institute but it's supposed to be modeled after Stanford's Hoover Institute. Dubbya can only hope his institute get's the level of bi-partisan support the Hoover Institute gets.

So you really don't think Dubbya is going to be making appearances, giving speeches and holding forums on campus?

Oh and there's a good chance nobody will be able to see Dubbya's papers for a very long time if he has his way. Hopefully Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) can get his bill passed though early next year that would rescind Dubbya's decree, that I believe keeps his papers under lock and key for twenty years.

I'd rather have a winning football team with a coach with a controversial past than monuments to this joker's legacy of brutality and idiocy.

Turner don't F it up...hire the best guy you possibly can.

The Bush Presidential Library and a controversial coach are not comparable. Of course a Presidential Library is going to focus on the positive aspects of that President's term, but it should also allow for the historical analysis of his term and the events that unfolded within his term.

If it's to be modeled after the Hoover Institute (by the way, Hoover was an awful President), then that will be another great addition to the University. Of course, I hope that the important documents are released so this administration can be properly judged by history, instead of propaganda and politics.

Now why does having a successful football program have to be tied to a controversial coach? If a coach has a controversial past is a candidate for the job, then his past should be closely examined and taken into account when seeing if his is suitable for the job, not just overlooked.

I agree with you for the most part. I just don't agree with SMU selectively applying a "controversy" litmus test whether it's for a library for a very controversial president or a football coach with "contoversial past".

dcpony wrote:I agree with you for the most part. I just don't agree with SMU applying a "controversy" litmus test whether it's for a library for a very controversial president or a football coach with "contoversial past".

The difference, in my opinion, is the library won't kill the university. At worst it'll be a waste of space at first because of Bush's executive order to withhold important documents (I think it's for 20 years). A bad coach, one that violates NCAA rules, has the potential to cripple our football program and subsequently our athletic department again. If we were found guilty of NCAA violations, it would be very hard to keep much of University in favor of athletics. Fair or not, a coach with a controversial past history of NCAA violations poses a risk that would need to be addressed if he were the top candidate (i.e. keeping a tight leash on him to minimize the possibility of NCAA violations).