DrTorch Wrote:KlutzDio I Wrote:
KDI,
I won't contend that Roosevelt did many of the things that you point out. But, you make it seem as if he planned the course of events for the entire world. It sounds as if he was Darth Sidious or Dr. Doom. I seriously doubt Roosevelt was strategizing to make the US such a world power. He was probably trying to serve the US' interests...but you give him an awful lot of "credit" for his approach.
Quote:On your other point, I heard ACB (anti-clinton bashing) prior to that man's ascension to the White House. Does that mean Clinton killing Foster is just anti-Clinton hysteria? Does this factoid render all past and present Republican complaints of Clinton untrustworthy?
Why is it that one can detest, hate, bash, burn in effigy Clinton, and now Kerry (maybe even McCain too), but not Bush?
It's not just the rhetoric...how about approving judicial nominations? How about using a filibuster in a way that was never intended? You don't have to like or agree w/ the nominations...that's part of politics. The question for senate approval is, "are they qualified in this field of law?" Bork, Thomas, Estrada, etc all are.
Did Clinton struggle through the same contentions? It doesn't come to my memory that he did. And someone should have balked at a cabinet appointment like Jocelyn Elders...Frankly I'd be so bold as to suggest she cheated to get through medical school (despite it being barely above a correspondence school) and her boards'... Then there was Reno...Richardson...Curious rumors about Brown (where there's smoke, eh Oddball?)
Secondly, the tone of the Bush bashing is different. He's just "stupid"...a "bungler". Very vague. Clinton bashing at least had tangible criticisms.
Maybe it's because I work in a state that's heavily democrat. Many of the criticisms that I personally hear are unfounded and often are based on mis-information.
Quote:Why do critical arguments of Bush administration policies escape consideration, even when some of these criticisms come from the Right?
I'm not saying Bush gets a free ride. I'm just suggesting that saying he's "stupid" is not a useful criticism and is inconsistent w/ the demands for "respecting the office" that were frequently posted during the impeachment. I'm also pointing out that the ABB stuff started before the 2000 election.
As for Bush failing at everything prior to his governorship...I think that's a bit dramatic. Curiously, I have a 1989 issue of Time w/ a story on the president's kid. Doesn't strike me as a total failure.
Nevertheless...didn't Lincoln have a pretty bad streak before he became president?
Quote:What were Johnson's ideologies you speak of? Could it be immigration loosening? How does your current Prez stack up compared to that?
Could it be Civil Rights? Would you prefer to live in a nation that has a state-sanctioned and supported apartheid system?
Could it be war in Southeast Asia to promote democracy in the region? How does your current Prez.'s democracy promotion in the mideast compare in relation to Johnson?
I think you were overall vague in your post.
Interesting analogies KDI...but as they say, the devil is in the details.
"Civil Rights"? Johnson didn't invent the issue. Instead he proclaimed a "Great Society" that led to a welfare system and subsidized housing that in fact developed into economic apartheid. The fact that they are blowing up those housing units to try something else is a testament to their failure. The fact that welfare reform has worked (despite some comical pleas not to let it happen) demonstrates that the system was wretched to begin with.
Immigration? Johnson sided w/ those who demanded that the doors be opened to those who were openly and actively against the foundations of the US. I personally believe that 9/11 is a consequence of this. Bush's gestures have come under criticism from both sides...and those are probably well deserved. But the distinction is that he's opening up the rolls for those who are here and supporting the country.
Will some malcontents come in? Sure, but that's different than the quota system that Johnson allowed to be put in place. (And abuses abound. See the voting scandal from CA, c. 1998)
The war is probably the most intriguing comparison. I'm not an expert on Viet Nam, nor this war. But, while there are certainly similarities, I suspect even you are aware of critical differences. I bet you could elaborate on this, b/c I don't think you really believe they are identical.
Quote:Don't worry about me having to read, I love to read, even if it is something I am likely to disagree with, or even if it is a poor history lesson.
Well, perhaps I should stick to science, since my history is so poor. But, I'm not worried about your reading...it's the time it takes to write all of this. I have to work at least sometimes.
Before I get to Dr. T, Motown you should know that I know that Dems are racists. I would even venture to argue that all humans are racists to some extent.
For the Dems, their history as a party is entirely racist, i.e. Dixiecrats. I am aware of this, and mostly the Dems have legislated in the past institutional forms of racism, meaning the state mandates which races are second-class citizens and which are not.
Dr. T,
You assume that I am a Roos. supporter, a Clinton supporter and a Johnson supporter. I merely brought these guys up in relation to your incredulousness that some are critical of Bush. I also mention these things because based on your other post, you somewhat vaguely suggest that all the evils of today were caused by what several past presidents did, and I consider this totally outside of reality, or at least outside the realm of historical, first account documentation.
On stupidity:
Have you ever seen the President speak? Bush, that is?
Based on hearing him speak on more than at least four occasions, would you say that Bush has:
1. average intelligence
2. higher than average intelligence
3. below average intelligence
4. seriously deficient intelligence
5. superior intelligence
6. other, fill in ______________?
Based on watching the president whenever I can, and whenever he is on, based on his lauding of the GOP, White House directed policies, I would say that Bush has seriously deficient intelligence.
Call me naive, call me an idealist, but Bush is just plain stupid and I've always assumed that the President of the USA is a smart man, an intelligent man and wise. Bush exhibits none of these characteristics. In fact, consider that Bush's public appearances are all scripted, and he cannot even read a speech prepared for him with any authority that displays any level of average intelligence. I am not insinuating here that past presidents did not rely on scripted speaking points, but I have witnessed past presidents at least feign intelligence when speaking in public. I mean, gawd knows that Clinton was a freaking idiot because he kept sleeping around and kept getting caught.
You should also consider the difference between my criticisms of Bush as a person, and criticisms of Bush policies. This latter category does not refer to Bush as a person, rather it refers to the people around him who control the executive branch, and that would be Cheney, Rummie, Asswhipe, Condie, the now defunct Tenet, Rove, Perle, Wolfie, and a whole host of others that I cannot rattle off the top of my head. You're a fool to think that Bush controls the exec. branch, the buck stops with him, calls the shots,etc. Anybody can see, should they choose to cast off illusions, that Bush is entirely of incapable intelligence to write anything, to say anything of substance, to be politically shrewd, to have a political sense, to see contradictions in policies, etc, etc, etc.
I imagine you disagree with this. Just watch Bush the next time he's on TV. To get the full view of the Prez. I suggest watching C-SPAN because they show his "speaking" engagements in its entiretly, and not 20 second sound bytes.
Roos. showed up the Soviets. He always had Stalin guessing. Churchill was overbearing, and consequently Roos. hated him. Roos. was a control freak, and consequently the A-bomb was news to Truman when he took the throne.
You say in response that Roos. was serving U.S. interest in shaping business dealings. Wouldn't you say that U.S. interests were to increase our influence in world economics and power (we already were a world power, not like we are today, but still an empire, a global economic power, meaning we used our levels of production to aid the rest of the world financially given the depression strapped world economy). If that is so, then how can you and your ilk label him an anti-American, pro-Soviet commie? How can you claim Roos. was ineffectual at aiding the depression given your statements? I strongly urge you to read up on Roos. especially primary source documents from the era because I was surprised to learn of some of his policies, some of his vision.
Does this mean I support Roos, or would have supported Roos. No, he had his faults, and these were many.
Roos. initiated the draft prior to WW2 because he knew it would take invovlement in war to get us out of the depression; it was his strategy. Roos. loathed GOP-led isolationism, fought against it tooth and nail, and was villified by his opponents on the other side. How many times did the House debate bringing up impeachment hearings on the chief exec?
Roos. wanted American command in both theatres of the war to be supreme, finally Churchill saw it his way on this after Africa.
I noticed you skipped the question about Hoover.
Clinton had nothing to do with Bork. The gov. of Arkansas has nothing to do with initiating filibusters in Congress. Likewise with Thomas--that was the Dems in Congress doing that.
Once in office, Clinton's back-room dealing with the GOP angered his own party. It's all in the record, check it out.
As for Estrada, I'll have to brush up on that. The whole judge thing is really ridiculous. After 1994 do you know how many GOP-led filibusters were initiated to block Clinton nominated judges, cabinet members, generals, etc.????
What did Elders do that was so bad? She mentioned that masterbation is something that people do, and consequently it should be "taught" in school. As soon as she made this shocking statement, Clinton and his handlers cut her loose. What more can you ask?
As for beatingoff, haven't you done it, at least once? Is it really so bad? Are you aware of the physiological requirement for expelling semen? Don't you know the body will expel semen without beatinoff? Do you know anything about this in regard to the prostate?
Elders did have a tough row to hoe through the nomination process. It was a party-line vote. Consider the fact the Dems still had control of the Congress back in 1993.
Other than Clinton's sexual obsessions, promiscuity, liasons with near-children, what of substance was the crux of Clinton bashing? I remember, commie, pinko, waffling, homo-buttsexing, poon-Hillary-whipped gasbag. As soon as Bush Sr. lost, this rhetoric began. It began before Monica. It began as soon as it was evident he had the nomination, and as soon as Perot re-entered the race. Then much of the bashing was directed at Perot, too. The GOP will bash, bash and bash, read on....
That is all beside the point. In addition to intelligence, I too believe the Prez of the USA should have a high moral inventory, i.e. to avoid having sex outside of marriage, and with near-children.
The Bush-bashing is of an entirely different nature. First, Bush is stupid and this carries the reality that he is not in charge, he is incapable of being in charge, that he is merely the front-man, the yes-man for his radical cabinet and advisors.
For any president to sit by and allow the Secy of Def. to insult most of Continental Europe is obviously not calling the shots.
You said you live in a librul state. Well I live in a GOP state. People here are still obsessed with Clinton, it 's ridiculous. Anyway, come down here and be with like minds because most folks down here love Bush so much that he is mentioned in prayer, right before "in Jesus name we pray...."
You walk into my boss' office right now and there is a likeness of Jesus Christ with a halo over his head. On the very next wall is a portrait of the President--GWB.
Down here it's religiosity and any mention of criticism of GWB or his policies (keep in mind that I use Bush as representing his cabinet's policies, after all he is the front-man) is akin to blasphemy.
I think many of the criticisms are off-base, i.e. Bush is Hitler. But to reiterate, Bush does not control the exec. branch, and the folks in charge do not represent Americans, only American corporations that are stuffing the Bush-cabinets' pockets. And, American corporations, many of which, have holdings in the Caymans.
<a href='http://www.opensecrets.org' target='_blank'>Check out this site to see who funds the current junta.</a>
I began bashing Bush before the 2000 election because I saw a shift in GOP ideology, a shift mandated by the junta, that is the far-right minority within the GOP.
All my childhood I've heard GOP people applaud the service of veterans. During the 1988 GOP convention, I heard McCain speak in front of a boisterously approving crowd. His statements carried the day as he stumped for Bush's pappy. Fast-forward 12 years and the same party, the GOP, was denegrating a war veteran who had all of his teeth pulled out by the Vietnamese Army that held him. McCain had connections in the Navy brass and state dept. and the Vietnamese new they could use this as leverage. They sought a deal with Johnson, and then Nixon to let McCain and some other connected guys go. They told McCain they were going to let him go back to the USA, and he refused. He cited his rate as being the highest rated officer among the POW population. He said he had a duty to stay with these men, and he did. His captors tortured him for non cooperation.
The denegration McCain suffered at the hands of the GOP in the 2000 primary is akin to spitting on Vietnam vets fresh off the plane from Saigon in 1970-74. I lost all respect for Bush at this point. Any intelligent being would have 86ed that viciousness coming from his own party. This only shows Bush's stupidity and his powerlessness within the GOP.
Add to that the fact Bush did not even prepare for any debates or Q&A with the press. It was as if he had the White House already in the bag; he had no reason to prepare for debate.
The gov. of Texas is a near powerless position. The legislature in that state has the gov. reigned in, and has since 1876. It's a Reconstruction thing, look into it.
Could you specify Lincoln's bad streak? Before answering, consider that politicians of the 19th century do not resemble anything of today. Consider women could not vote, blacks were enslaved or disfranchised and that led to a boorishness in campaigning for any office. Most campaigns were led by political gatherings in which money swapped hands openly, and whisky flowed for wooden barrels. The politicos staging the events fed the on-lookers, sang songs, fought with fisticuffs, etc. etc. It was WWF of the day, that is running for offfice.
The temperance movement began simultaneously with the women's suffrage movement. Women felt that their participation in the political process would limit the overwhelming consumption of alcohol during the election season.
To compare Lincoln with a post depression exec. today is an anachronism, unless you can point to specific policy pursuits that were unconstitutional, and Lincoln had many. Can you name these?
Johnson didn't invent the issue, and I didn't say he did. Actually the civil rights movement was begun by a group of black middle class merchants circa 1880 in response to lynchings in the South (and North, more prevalent in the deep South).
Plessey, a mulatto from New Orleans originally challenged the 'black codes' that were cropping up all over Dixie. These codes were designed to show freedmen their place, that they could not exhibit any freedom or political rights.
Plessey sat on an all-white train, and the whole event was staged. Plessey was so white in appearance, only his birth records showed he had a white momma. He wanted to get arrested to challenge the local and state laws. This was the beginning of the Civil Rights movement in the United States.
The U.S. supreme court sided for the local ordinances, citing the famed "separate but equal..." All U.S. presidents until Johnson (including Kennedy) turned the other cheek, the blind eye to Southern institutional apartheid. Truman made national concessions by integrating the military, before him the Congress of the 1920s extended citizenship to native Americans, but the South was solidy segregated, and fearing the influence of Southerners in national politics, the presidents stepped in line and didn't challenge the status quo, until Johnson.
Great society was rhetoric. It was so lofty it was destined to fail. At least Johnson listened to the black grievances, and did so reluctantly. Had Johnson not challenged the segregated society down here, Nixon would have turned the blind eye, as would have Ford, Vietnam would have been more of a mess, and Carter would have likely been the first to end institutional apartheid in the South. Yet, hindsight is 20/20. Johnson did what he did and while it had awful consequences, not all Johnson's fault, it was much better than what had preceded it in the South (Johnson was more moved by white poverty in West Virginia than segregation, but considered these aspects linked).
Johnson's immigration reform cost much less than the system that preceded his policy. An army of immigration workers routinely rounded up immigrants, right off the boats, for deportation. The refusal to allow certain peoples in the nation cost the taxpayers dearly before Johnson.
Specifically, his policies ended quotas based on the religious and ethnic makeup for those coming into the nation. At the time, more Eastern Europeans were coming in than Muslims or Arabs.
Arab immigration increased with the Ford and Carter administrations. And, should I point out that breaking the quota system had wide bi-partisan support?
Of course not. Vietnam and the current war are two different bags of fruit. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO POST THIS------THE RHETORIC EMPLOYED IN DEFENSE OF BOTH WARS IS THE SAME. READ A FRIGGEN NEWSPAPER FROM 1967-1972 AND YOU'LL SEE IN PRINT THE SAME FRIGGEN RHETORIC, I.E. BUILDING DEMOCRACY, SAVING THEM FROM THEMSELVES AND EVIL DICTATORS, THEY POSE A THREAT TO THE USA, SADDAM/HO CHI MINH IN VIOLATIONS OF UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS. It's all there, just read a paper from 1967, and it's like reading one from 2003-04.
Well, thanks for being more specific. Thanks for answering most questions. I suggest you look all this up because you are posting your very brief versions of history that simply do not conform to primary source documents. The documents, the newspapers, the books, the policies are all out there, available at your local public library. You'll have to sign up for ILL (interlibrary loan) for much of the info, but it's there, for free.
Who signed welfare reform into law with the aid of the GOP congress? Who could have vetoed it? Who could have pocket-vetoed it??
/
Has there been a worse President in our history?
![[Image: dumb***.jpg]](http://home.hawaii.rr.com/ax1s/dumb***.jpg)
