SDSundevil Wrote:Is that what your crystal ball told you, how long do you think it took the terrorists to plan, mobilize, train and execute 9/11, the most likely answer is years, perhaps if Clinton and Gore would have properly dealt with the terrorist threats WTC 1, Embassy bombings, USS Cole than 9/11 would not have happened, in all probability had Gore been in the WH on 9/11 there would have been another terror attack on US soil by now

"If you go back and read what Bush said in the campaign, he's just doing what he said he'd do. You've got to give him credit for that...no one has the whole truth." Bill Clinton, June 03, 2004

Dr. T,

I meant to add this to my last post, but did not for the sake of brevity.

First, we discuss complex issues here. These are big, large issues that folks have written books about. On issues such as the ones we discuss on this thread and on the forum itself, there are more than two choices. It's not just Dems. vs Republicans. It's not just libruls vs. conservatives. Historical events were not caused by either event A or event B. I know you know all this, but I'm wordy in my posts to be very clear about things. The limitations of language do not allow for brief and clear, and only the greatest writers can do this with deft.

Secondly, you interjected Lincoln into a thread, and while I was thinking this at the time, I never posted it. I'm sure you realize that Lincoln had a tough row to hoe before becoming president. Did you know that Lincoln had four worthy competitors in that race? Are you aware that Lincoln was not on the ballot in 11 Southern states? Consequently, that race was close, so close that it was the impetus to drive the Southern states from the Union.

The Southern rebels' main grievance was a president won the election, but was not on the ballot in their respective states. Therefore they were to leave the Union in protest of the farcical nature of electing a president.

There were more secession justifications not relevant here.

Anyway, Lincoln and Bush share some similarities as far as elections go. Florida was a fiasco in the 2000 election. People didn't get to vote and ballots were tossed, yes I know at the behest of Gore these ballots were tossed, but no one knows what candidate was chosen on the ballots. Absentee ballots were not necessarily GOP ballots. Military conducted political polls in which representative samples were conducted showed a 58%-42% of respondents claiming they were conservative or liberal, with the cons leading. Those military absentee ballots that were tossed could have tipped Florida either way.

Gore's insistence, nonetheless, caused extraordinary controversy over the election that was simply unnecessary. He should have conceded, even if there were improprieties, which there mostly likely were.

Bush came into the inauguration under a cloud of controversy, yet not entirely his fault. Had Bush been a better candidate, the whole Fla. question would have never been an issue.

Lincoln too came into the White House with controversy, and with a crisis at hand. Nine states had left the Union, and two more would leave after six weeks of Lincoln's presidency.

Bush had a crisis as well. First it was the economy and then the terrorists struck.

Lincoln, however, is not very relevant considering the bickering between Dems and Republicans, but both presidents have shared similar experiences as commanders in chief, while Lincoln certainly took the rougher road before his political career than the silver-spooned and groomed Bush.

KlutzDio I Wrote:Dr. T,

I misunderstood you when you said that I am aware of difference in the Vietnam War and the current war. I thought you said that I did not see the differences and that I was incapable of seeing the differences. I apologize.

I was tired last night when responding, but I noticed  today that you really didn't answer any of my most pressing questions, such as:

Why is Bush and Bush-policies absolved of criticism?

I have never said Bush or the GOP is above criticism. I believe they have much to be criticized for, and I have occasionally added my personal criticisms. It is the irrational criticisms, and the heated animosity I was questioning.

Quote:Why do you disdain those who criticize Bush, when you  criticize many presidents?

Again, it is the irrational and unfounded criticisms I hold in disdain.

Quote:What does Lincoln have to do with anything?

It was a response to the "Bush failed at everything he did before becoming governor" comment. First, that's a dubious statement. Second, what does that comment have to do w/ Bush's presidency? Thrid, (and to answer your question) the same could be said of Lincoln.

Quote:Why are you so vague?

Because I don't have time for every specific you might ask for. So, I maintain accuracy at the cost of precision.

Now, why are you so careless when reading my posts? As I stated, you misunderstood Motown Bronco's comments as my own. You have ascribed interpetations, that to me that seem wildly unjustified. (For example the diatribe on Roosevelt).

Quote:I clearly stated that I think calling Bush a Hitler is ridiculous, but you then went on and denigrated me for agreeing with you there.

I did? I apologize, I didn't realize I did. And I don't really see where I did that.

Quote:How is Johnson responsible for 9/11 when their was bi-partisan support for ending the quota system policy on immigration?

Maybe I'm wrong here. But, I never understood the forces that wanted this to be so bi-partisan. I always understood them to be primarily from the left. (Remember the isolationism from the right that you mentioned around Roosevelt's time? That hadn't completely diminished. Ergo, I still believe that this was primarily from the left...and was a poorly constructed manifesto regardless.)

Quote:What does Johnson's poor policies, which I acknowledged, have anything to do with the failing Democratic Party?

Again, I don't think I was so vague. The Democratic party had moved far to the left after Johnson (ie McGovern) so these policies (or even more extreme ones) were critical elements to the party. But, Johnson's social policies were catastrophic...ergo the party has suffered immensely. Clinton came across as a moderate and helped the party win. But, many tensions still exist.

Quote:Why do you say animosity between the parties is unprecedented when throughout our history the two parties (and the parties' predecessors) have hated one another since the second Constitutional Congress?

I was vague here. While the hatred may not be unpreccedented the manifestation of that dislike is. Senate confirmations (or avoidance thereof) are clearly opposed to original intent. Heated words are one thing...this is pushing the extremes of the constitution.

Quote:What it comes down to, Dr.T, you will not admit Bush is a poor president, but you are too willing to admit that others were poor presidents.

History will ultimately decide on Bush. I hold the mainstream media in low esteem, and the inflamatory prejudiced, criticisms aren't worth considering.

Quote:You will not admit that Clinton was unfairly criticized, but you are incredulous that Bush is unfairly criticized.

Clinton was unfairly criticized. Happy? However, the media watchdogs let far too much slide by...and still do.

Quote:I think when someone comes along and says Bush is an idiot, which I explained the relevancy thereof in detail, you take it as someone saying "Dr. T is an idiot." That is not the case, Dr. T. I don't think you are an idiot.

I did not take it personally. I simply offered a personal experience as to why your final assessment may not be accurate. Moreover, this is the one area where I provided the most info, particularly links to further material. Yet, you seem to have disregarded all of that. I am disappointed in this b/c I thought it was very relevant to your commentary on Bush.

Quote: You are so vague in your posts that it serves as your modus operandi, that is to never really say anything definitive, and to merely suggest things, your opponents, such as myself, sieze on things and then you say 'I never said that...don't read too much into what I say...'

Being unclear and vague is your deceitful debating style because when doing so, you can never be wrong.

Maybe this is the crux of it all. When I'm fiercly debating I think you'll know it. But for me, on these points, I consider it a discussion. I have considered other points and try to add points that others may not have considered. I'm really not trying to be contentious on many of these issues. Moreover, the fact that you've ascribed a variety of comments to me that weren't mine, plus you've often chosen to interpret my comments as contentious, makes me believe that you are kind of looking for offenses.

I'm humble enough to know what I don't know. I don't know what the CIA, NSA, NRO, FBI or any other intellegence agency knew. I'd wager no-one else on this board did either. Why am I going to get incensed over whose fault was 9/11? (other than al Queda)

I hear a guy like Lester Thurow talk about the need for globalization...why would I blame Republicans for offshore outsourcing?

Quote:On Johnson and Civil Rights, you never really explained why that was so bad. ...

See KDI, you want to point out deceitful debating styles...how about this straw man? I never ciriticized the CRA. I criticized Johnson's "Great Society" policies which led to a continued apartheid, and ultimately economic disaster because he tried all this w/ a war going on.

(BTW, Bush's tax/economic policies could backfire as well.)

Quote:What have the Republicans done here recently to alleviate this?

Feel free to check me on this, b/c I heard this on the radio and don't have a link. But, the wealth of blacks increased over 200% over the last 20 years. (6-7 times the rate of whites). Capitalism, and a sensible tax policy does wonders.

Quote:Could you be clear for a change? Could you say something definitive? Could you answer my questions without interjecting irrelevant figures and topics?

It would be appreciated.

Again KDI, save the chiding or we can skip discussions altogether. You're a bright guy, lots of solid research. But, I don't have time to follow every change in direction you take the conversation:

Hoover? I don't know the answer...but I didn't start the Roos. discussion.

The CRA? Wasn't my point, I was addressing the Great Society economic agenda.

etc. <- Intentionally vague b/c it's late

KlutzDio I Wrote:Dr. T,

I misunderstood you when you said that I am aware of difference in the Vietnam War and the current war. I thought you said that I did not see the differences and that I was incapable of seeing the differences. I apologize.

I was tired last night when responding, but I noticed today that you really didn't answer any of my most pressing questions, such as:

Why is Bush and Bush-policies absolved of criticism?

Why do you disdain those who criticize Bush, when you criticize many presidents?

What does Lincoln have to do with anything?

Why are you so vague?

I clearly stated that I think calling Bush a Hitler is ridiculous, but you then went on and denigrated me for agreeing with you there.

How is Johnson responsible for 9/11 when their was bi-partisan support for ending the quota system policy on immigration?

What does Johnson's poor policies, which I acknowledged, have anything to do with the failing Democratic Party?

Why do you say animosity between the parties is unprecedented when throughout our history the two parties (and the parties' predecessors) have hated one another since the second Constitutional Congress?

What it comes down to, Dr.T, you will not admit Bush is a poor president, but you are too willing to admit that others were poor presidents.

You will not admit that Clinton was unfairly criticized, but you are incredulous that Bush is unfairly criticized.

I think when someone comes along and says Bush is an idiot, which I explained the relevancy thereof in detail, you take it as someone saying "Dr. T is an idiot." That is not the case, Dr. T. I don't think you are an idiot. I think you are very crafty.

You are so vague in your posts that it serves as your modus operandi, that is to never really say anything definitive, and to merely suggest things, your opponents, such as myself, sieze on things and then you say 'I never said that...don't read too much into what I say...'

Being unclear and vague is your deceitful debating style because when doing so, you can never be wrong.

On Johnson and Civil Rights, you never really explained why that was so bad. The choices at the time were clear. The South was an apartheid society, as were many Yankee cities. Johnson passed the CRA which gave blacks the right to vote in the South (and elsewhere). The economic differences existed before the CRA, before Johnson existed. The economic differences have existed as long as blacks and whites have been here.

The other choice was to do like so many presidents had done before Johnson--to ignore the apartheid.

What have the Republicans done here recently to alleviate this? Why does Johnson get all the flack for 400 years of unequal economic status between blacks and whites?

Anyway, my point on Johnson was entirely unreceived by you. He was the first president to acknowledge the fact that American citizens could not vote in the South--the blacks. He was also the first to act to change that, and he did, again with some Republicans on board.

How does this spell out the demise of the Democrats as a party?

Could you be clear for a change? Could you say something definitive? Could you answer my questions without interjecting irrelevant figures and topics?

It would be appreciated.

Quote:Dr. T,

I meant to add this to my last post, but did not for the sake of brevity.

First, we discuss complex issues here. These are big, large issues that folks have written books about. On issues such as the ones we discuss on this thread and on the forum itself, there are more than two choices. It's not just Dems. vs Republicans. It's not just libruls vs. conservatives. Historical events were not caused by either event A or event B. I know you know all this, but I'm wordy in my posts to be very clear about things. The limitations of language do not allow for brief and clear, and only the greatest writers can do this with deft.

Secondly, you interjected Lincoln into a thread, and while I was thinking this at the time, I never posted it. I'm sure you realize that Lincoln had a tough row to hoe before becoming president. Did you know that Lincoln had four worthy competitors in that race? Are you aware that Lincoln was not on the ballot in 11 Southern states? Consequently, that race was close, so close that it was the impetus to drive the Southern states from the Union.

The Southern rebels' main grievance was a president won the election, but was not on the ballot in their respective states. Therefore they were to leave the Union in protest of the farcical nature of electing a president.

There were more secession justifications not relevant here.

Anyway, Lincoln and Bush share some similarities as far as elections go. Florida was a fiasco in the 2000 election. People didn't get to vote and ballots were tossed, yes I know at the behest of Gore these ballots were tossed, but no one knows what candidate was chosen on the ballots. Absentee ballots were not necessarily GOP ballots. Military conducted political polls in which representative samples were conducted showed a 58%-42% of respondents claiming they were conservative or liberal, with the cons leading. Those military absentee ballots that were tossed could have tipped Florida either way.

Gore's insistence, nonetheless, caused extraordinary controversy over the election that was simply unnecessary. He should have conceded, even if there were improprieties, which there mostly likely were.

Bush came into the inauguration under a cloud of controversy, yet not entirely his fault. Had Bush been a better candidate, the whole Fla. question would have never been an issue.

Lincoln too came into the White House with controversy, and with a crisis at hand. Nine states had left the Union, and two more would leave after six weeks of Lincoln's presidency.

Bush had a crisis as well. First it was the economy and then the terrorists struck.

Lincoln, however, is not very relevant considering the bickering between Dems and Republicans, but both presidents have shared similar experiences as commanders in chief, while Lincoln certainly took the rougher road before his political career than the silver-spooned and groomed Bush.

Ladies and gentlemen, the next great American novel

For those too lazy to look for themselves:

Quote:Al Gore and the Internet

By Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf

Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development.

No one person or even small group of persons exclusively "invented" the Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among people in government and the university community. But as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.

Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective.

As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept. Our work on the Internet started in 1973 and was based on even earlier work that took place in the mid-late 1960s. But the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises.

As a Senator in the 1980s Gore urged government agencies to consolidate what at the time were several dozen different and unconnected networks into an "Interagency Network." Working in a bi-partisan manner with officials in Ronald Reagan and George Bush's administrations, Gore secured the passage of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in 1991. This "Gore Act" supported the National Research and Education Network (NREN) initiative that became one of the major vehicles for the spread of the Internet beyond the field of computer science.

As Vice President Gore promoted building the Internet both up and out, as well as releasing the Internet from the control of the government agencies that spawned it. He served as the major administration proponent for continued investment in advanced computing and networking and private sector initiatives such as Net Day. He was and is a strong proponent of extending access to the network to schools and libraries. Today, approximately 95% of our nation's schools are on the Internet. Gore provided much-needed political support for the speedy privatization of the Internet when the time arrived for it to become a commercially-driven operation.

There are many factors that have contributed to the Internet's rapid growth since the later 1980s, not the least of which has been political support for its privatization and continued support for research in advanced networking technology. No one in public life has been more intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving Internet than the Vice President. Gore has been a clear champion of this effort, both in the councils of government and with the public at large.

The Vice President deserves credit for his early recognition of high speed computing and communication and for his long-term and consistent articulation of the potential value of the Internet to American citizens and industry and, indeed, to the rest of the world.

Realizing that the ones who repeat this lie the most probably have no clue who Vinton Cerf is, or why his statement 100% refutes their lie, here is a quote that they might be able to understand:

[quote]In all fairness, it’s something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness, Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet, and the truth is—and I worked with him starting in 1978 when I got [to Congress], we were both part of a “futures group

[quote="Oddball"] Realizing that the ones who repeat this lie the most probably have no clue who Vinton Cerf is, or why his statement 100% refutes their lie, here is a quote that they might be able to understand:

[quote]In all fairness, it’s something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness, Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet, and the truth is—and I worked with him starting in 1978 when I got [to Congress], we were both part of a “futures group

DrTorch Wrote:It was a response to the "Bush failed at everything he did before becoming governor" comment. First, that's a dubious statement. Second, what does that comment have to do w/ Bush's presidency? Thrid, (and to answer your question) the same could be said of Lincoln.

Now, why are you so careless when reading my posts? As I stated, you misunderstood Motown Bronco's comments as my own. You have ascribed interpetations, that to me that seem wildly unjustified. (For example the diatribe on Roosevelt).

Quote:I clearly stated that I think calling Bush a Hitler is ridiculous, but you then went on and denigrated me for agreeing with you there.

I did? I apologize, I didn't realize I did. And I don't really see where I did that.

Quote:How is Johnson responsible for 9/11 when their was bi-partisan support for ending the quota system policy on immigration?

Maybe I'm wrong here. But, I never understood the forces that wanted this to be so bi-partisan. I always understood them to be primarily from the left. (Remember the isolationism from the right that you mentioned around Roosevelt's time? That hadn't completely diminished. Ergo, I still believe that this was primarily from the left...and was a poorly constructed manifesto regardless.)

Quote:What does Johnson's poor policies, which I acknowledged, have anything to do with the failing Democratic Party?

Again, I don't think I was so vague. The Democratic party had moved far to the left after Johnson (ie McGovern) so these policies (or even more extreme ones) were critical elements to the party. But, Johnson's social policies were catastrophic...ergo the party has suffered immensely. Clinton came across as a moderate and helped the party win. But, many tensions still exist.

Quote:Why do you say animosity between the parties is unprecedented when throughout our history the two parties (and the parties' predecessors) have hated one another since the second Constitutional Congress?

I was vague here. While the hatred may not be unpreccedented the manifestation of that dislike is. Senate confirmations (or avoidance thereof) are clearly opposed to original intent. Heated words are one thing...this is pushing the extremes of the constitution.

Quote:You will not admit that Clinton was unfairly criticized, but you are incredulous that Bush is unfairly criticized.

Clinton was unfairly criticized. Happy? However, the media watchdogs let far too much slide by...and still do.

Quote:I think when someone comes along and says Bush is an idiot, which I explained the relevancy thereof in detail, you take it as someone saying "Dr. T is an idiot." That is not the case, Dr. T. I don't think you are an idiot.

I did not take it personally. I simply offered a personal experience as to why your final assessment may not be accurate. Moreover, this is the one area where I provided the most info, particularly links to further material. Yet, you seem to have disregarded all of that. I am disappointed in this b/c I thought it was very relevant to your commentary on Bush.

Quote: You are so vague in your posts that it serves as your modus operandi, that is to never really say anything definitive, and to merely suggest things, your opponents, such as myself, sieze on things and then you say 'I never said that...don't read too much into what I say...'

Being unclear and vague is your deceitful debating style because when doing so, you can never be wrong.

Maybe this is the crux of it all. When I'm fiercly debating I think you'll know it. But for me, on these points, I consider it a discussion. I have considered other points and try to add points that others may not have considered. I'm really not trying to be contentious on many of these issues. Moreover, the fact that you've ascribed a variety of comments to me that weren't mine, plus you've often chosen to interpret my comments as contentious, makes me believe that you are kind of looking for offenses.

I'm humble enough to know what I don't know. I don't know what the CIA, NSA, NRO, FBI or any other intellegence agency knew. I'd wager no-one else on this board did either. Why am I going to get incensed over whose fault was 9/11? (other than al Queda)

I hear a guy like Lester Thurow talk about the need for globalization...why would I blame Republicans for offshore outsourcing?

Quote:On Johnson and Civil Rights, you never really explained why that was so bad. ...

See KDI, you want to point out deceitful debating styles...how about this straw man? I never ciriticized the CRA. I criticized Johnson's "Great Society" policies which led to a continued apartheid, and ultimately economic disaster because he tried all this w/ a war going on.

(BTW, Bush's tax/economic policies could backfire as well.)

Quote:What have the Republicans done here recently to alleviate this?

Feel free to check me on this, b/c I heard this on the radio and don't have a link. But, the wealth of blacks increased over 200% over the last 20 years. (6-7 times the rate of whites). Capitalism, and a sensible tax policy does wonders.

Quote:Could you be clear for a change? Could you say something definitive? Could you answer my questions without interjecting irrelevant figures and topics?

It would be appreciated.

Again KDI, save the chiding or we can skip discussions altogether. You're a bright guy, lots of solid research. But, I don't have time to follow every change in direction you take the conversation:

Hoover? I don't know the answer...but I didn't start the Roos. discussion.

The CRA? Wasn't my point, I was addressing the Great Society economic agenda.

etc. <- Intentionally vague b/c it's late

When you've spent years perusing documents, old newspapers, large bound editions of congressional debates, actual bills presented to presidents, photos, personal accounts, etc. it really gets your goat when folks are so broad in commenting on the past.

The CRA was part of Johnson's Great Society. And it was largely white, impoverished West Virgnians that outraged the president to act and champion his Great Society.

Johnson's war did much to dampen whatever social agenda he might have had, and like the current president, Johnson surrounded himself with incompentent ideologues, with the exception of one or two.

Johnson was influenced by the CR Movement and Martin Luther King. Johnson really didn't want to act on Civil Rights and was as equally reluctant to do so as were other presidents before him. Johnson really wanted the Vietnam thing to end. He wanted to continue with what Kennedy had started over there, and failing in Vietnam would have opened him to GOP criticisms, which were already affecting his ability to lead. Nonetheless, Johnson went on with pushing the CRA ahead while he still had influence with House and Senate GOPpers. He could not ignore the CR issue any longer because riots were going on in American cities, and white kids were going South to register voters, and coming up missing. The president acted to end apartheid, and consequently that should give him some modicum of goodness, especially when other presidents championed Civil Rights during the campaign, and then did nothing about it.

Johnson went ahead with the CRA as part of his Great Society, and I don't see how the president's action on this has anything to do with urban ghettos that already existed. After the CRA, you had blacks going to Vietnam disproportionately, and I don't see how Johnson is entirely to be blamed for this. Black soldiers overseas certainly affected their communities back home, in an economic way.

On immigration, it was Johnson's policy, submitted to Congress for approval and it received bi-partisan support. The majority of people it let in were Eastern Europeans and Asians, and few Muslims. The Muslims immigrated later, after Johnson, mostly during the Ford, Carter and Reagan presidencies. (links posted below)

With the exception of your most recent posts, I haven't seen any criticisms from you on Bush on anything.

Bush did fail at most of that which he touched. Being gov. of Texas is not like being gov. of New York. The latter state's gov. actually has some power. But that's niether here nor there because my criticisms of Bush are his irrationality, absurdity, he doesn't care about public opinion, intellectually incapable of running the exec. branch, bounded by religiosity and ideology, he's devisive, offers knee-jerk responses, allows his cabinet and advisors too much leeway that borders on reduced control from the chief exec., he waffles, poor oratory skills, appears in scripted press conf. Q&A's, has not contributed to the ovearching issues of the day, and he's a spendthrift.

Lincoln got into office by Southern stupidity and I still don't see how this is relevant to Bush's failures or wealth of criticisms.

You say you maintain accuracy. I disagree. Accuracy cannot be maintained in roughly 700-1000 words. Accuracy demands book-length discussions of complex topics and issues. (more at the end of this post)

Maybe I'm careless at reading your posts because it's usually some more GOP-style myth chasing and berating, i.e. Democrats are socialists, Roos. was a socialist as was Johnson and Jimmy Carter ran the economy into the ground.

I did not misunderstand. I was not ever responding to Motown on this thread. I was responding to you. When I first responded to you, I had not even read Motown's post. I admit taking liberties with your initial post about how Roos. couldn't build the world economy on the TVA. Who says that's what he was trying to do with the TVA? Actually, the TVA has a rather exhilerating history and lots of controversy for the region.

I don't know what you mean by "ascribed interpretations" and you do not explain how these (whatever they are) are wildly unjustified.

You denigrated me when I said that I think calling Bush a Hitler is ridiculous. Go read your post.

What most folks around here seem to forget is that the president of the USA can have some policies, can have a vision, but nothing is really going to happen with that without our legislative branch. The Immigration Act of 1965 was a bill that went through every Senate and Congressional subcomittee before it was voted on in each house. It then went to the president who signed it into law. The votes in both houses were largely pro-immigration act with many Republicans on board. Both quorums on Immigration Act had only nominal "nay" votes.

Much of the isolationism during Johnson's regime came from the fledgling Dixiecrat wing of the Democratic Party.

By 1970 many of the Dixiecrats were retiring, being forced out by the national party organization, and some were jumping over to the GOP side. Some like Wallace ran for president as an independent. Some remained Democrats and remained in the Senate or House.

The tide of the late 60's, early 70's was largely pro-left, and with the assasination of Bobby Kennedy in 1968, and the assasination of MLK in the same year led the Democrats to become susceptible to the Leftist, Californy-factions. By the time of the 1968 Dem Convention in Chicago you had a power vacuum at the upper echelon of the party. On one side you had the vehemently violent Dems and Dixiecrats, on the other side of the same party, you had your Moonbeams and starchildren. The 1968 convention, as you probably remember, was a fiasco. If there was ever a time to say the Dems' party was splintering apart, it was then.
By the '72 election, of course McGovern was going to win the nomination, in a bitterly fought primary. As a result, most of the conservative elements of the party jumped ship, jumped sides, retired altogether, or stayed in to keep getting all that insurance and Israeli money.
Had Nixon acted differently on the war, had the GOP grown during the Nixon years, we might be a truly one-party state today.

There have always been heated words in the Congress and Senate. Back before the Civil War, 1858 I think, you had one Senator cane another one in front of the entire body.

With the advent of C-SPAN covering both Houses all day long while they are in session, the media can find all the inflammatory remarks and edit those into 10-second sound bytes for the Tom Brokaw hour. The access to more media sources gives the impression that the dislike among the parties is at unprecedented levels. Really, these people put on a show for us, for the cameras. You know they all play golf together, don't you?

The confirmation process is always like this. Both sides need to admit that they nominate ideologue judges for the bench, then both sides try to sully that nominees reputation. Then the other side acts incredulous that this is all going on. What a bunch of phoneys!

I know C-SPAN is boring, but I watch a good bit of it. In my office I have a small TV on my desk. It's on for most of the day and you'd really be surprised if you watched it because I can't firgure out just why there's no one there when they are about to vote on something. The Senate is different somewhat, but largely no one is there for debates these days (I'm not talking about filibusters, just ordinary debate). when the cameras pan the room, it's 75% empty most days. Do we even have a Congress these days?

On avoidance, if there's no quorum, there can be no vote. If all these dudes are out playing golf, how can any votes take place? When the GOP wants to vote, they have the majority in the House and they usually vote regardless of which Dems are in there that day. Usually the Dems present want to debate, and Hastert's lackey blocks that.

When the Dems' have a proposal up for vote, the House cannot achieve quorum, so the issue gets put on the back burner. Tune in sometime and check it out, it's amazing how these guys waste our money!

Criticisms are worth considering, especially when it requires $287 to wage a war that was supposedly necessary, and purported as an easy affair that the Iraqis would eventually pay for themselves. Criticism is most definitely important or else you would not chastise the Dems for blocking judicial nominations (which go on in the almost equally divided Senate, btw).

In the Senate confirmations, one must remember that Clinton's hands were tied back when he was president. The Senate was up to their tricks back then, led by the GOP. It's tit-for-tat Dr. T and I don't agree with it, I certainly don't like it and that's why I think these guys need to get voted out. What troubles me is that certain sides think it's all partisan, well of course it is, it's politics!

I don't really think the media is "watchdogs" and the media is no community service. The media is a business and if they can turn the nightly news into some kind of toned-down Jerry Springer in order to make a buck, then they will and they have. The media is a business and they cater to the market. Don't like the media? Don't give the media your patronage!

I really don't see how you can say Bush is not stupid. Apparently you've never seen one of his public speaking engagements. You've apparently never watched one of his national addresses.

As for the links, I did not disregard these. I looked at them and I did not see how in any way they contradicted, or questioned my claim that Bush is an idiot. Perhaps I should define my use of "idiot." This is one who thinks in terms of either/or and regularly contradicts themselves. Ex. You're either with us or against us....and Condoleeza Rice will not testify. (also read anything RebelKev posts) Your posted links on intelligence theories spoke about problem solving, of which the president has only one solution for every problem--tax cut. Don't misunderstand me here, tax cuts are great, but how do we fund the $287 billion war without some taxes? Is the National Guard and military a community service, non-for-pay organization?

You are, and have most definitely been contentious on this board, especially in responding to me. Hey, that's okay, I enjoy a good debate and it's really funny when someone misrepresents me and then claims incredulation that they were misrepresented. I think you have a deep seated hatred for me because I'm admittedly non-Christian. But that's okay too, I don't mind being hated. And if you don't hate me, that's okay too, but you do seem to follow me around on this forum.

C'mon Dr. T, we all know you are a GOP mythologizer. When you mention "world power" and "New Deal" on a post entitled worst president ever, what conclusion do you expect us to make?

If you can, however, supply a list of all comments I made in response to things you did not say, then I'll respond to each and every one of them and either apologize or explain my thinking process.

Well you did say that Johnson was responsible for 9/11:

<<"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.">>

And you are totally incorrect when you stated this:

<<"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)">>

Johnson's Immigration Act of 1964 was much different than you purport here.

<a href='http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/USA/Immigration.CP.html' target='_blank'>Brief overview of the Immigration Act of 1965</a>

<a href='http://www.fact-index.com/u/us/us_immigration_act_of_1965.html' target='_blank'>More info on it, including the House and Senate vote results.</a>

When did the GOP and outsourcing come up in previous discussions on this thread? What does that have to do with anything? This is an example of you bringing up irrelevant topics.

The cited 200% statistic is very misleading and I'll briefly explain why. Whites have enjoyed a fairly good level of wealth, especially considering that Baby Boomer whites went to college moreso than did Baby Boomer blacks. Since more whites qualified for the GI Bill than blacks did, more whites went to college and became doctors and lawyers during the post WW2 years.
Whites, for the most part, come from families with solid finances while blacks have not. When blacks began taking advantage of college loans and grants in the late 70s and 80s, more became educated and gainfully employed in something other than McDonald's. To rise from a pittance $10K per year, and then to make around 25K your first year out of school, which is the story of many black professionals today, then the increase is going to be large in percentages.
Blacks, also have taken advantage of the National Guard and military recruiting carrots of college tuition dough for signatures. When I was in school, almost every black student I met was either active duty Guard, active duty Reserves, or just got out of the Marines or something. Then again, to skew my personal experience here, I went to a school that had only 13% black enrollment.

But to throw a wrench in your cited statistic, you attribute the rise in black incomes to "capitalism" and "sensible tax policy." First, this is vague, and secondly how does a sensible tax policy (whatever that is) help blacks over any other race? Actually, the GOP congress has been voting to reduce tax rates on the larger income groups for more than 20 years now. Blacks have maintained a very miniscule portion of this higher income group, so how does "sensible tax policy" do "wonders" in this area?
Secondly, "capitalism" is a word that's often tossed around. Are you throwing it in here to insinuate that only the GOP are capitalists? As far as I know, we are a mixed economy today, and have been for awhile now. For the most part we are a capitalist, consumer-based economy and have been throughout much of the 20th century.What does this have to do with blacks increasing 200% income over the past 20 years?

Whites have had income that was relatively high, as compared to blacks in the past 20 years. Although my family was strapped for cash throughout the 70s and 80s when I was growing up, we certainly lived like kings compared to all those poor souls living in the Jean-Lafite Housing Project. Many of those black kids living in the projects ended up going to college, getting jobs, joining the military to go to college, or shooting hoops to go to there. If you look at overall statistics, however, blacks' incomes is still quite low overall compared to whites.

Now you cited the statistic (the 200% one) in response to my question about what have the Republicans done. I don't think you clearly showed that the GOP is responsible for any of this, and the jump from the impoverished-class to the working-poor class is not that really big of a jump anyway. Those suckers are joining the rest of us--in debt to their ears for college, housing and transportation--to a sh*t job selling crap no one needs.

My changes in the conversation are not changes per se, well not like the irrelevancies you bring up. I'm a process historian, as are most historians. Events happen in procession, not all at once and based on one cause isolated in time. Things happen because a series of other events build to a crescendo and then something big happens. To explain this is difficult, tiresome and wordy. This is the first lesson I received in my senior history seminars in college. Nothing can be explained well, with accuracy, without looking at all the different events in procesion that caused other events. I get really peeved when folks say things (and I'm not saying you always do this, but this led me to respond to you in the first place, on this thread) such as 'Clinton is the reason our military is strapped,' or 'Reagan ended the Cold War.' It is entirely too simplistic to say things such as this and claim that it is history or historical.

On this thread you originally made assertions that GOP/Dem animosity started with Bork, when this is entirely innacurate. You also contend that the "media cut their teeth with civil rights and Vietnam..." whatever that is supposed to mean, and that Johnson had failing ideologies. Well his ideology may be unpopular now, but he had bi-partisan support in congress until the Vietnam war became cumbersome, then the animosity rekindled, and enter into the context a 100 billion other historical events, and that is the process that created the animosity.

Two things lead Dems and GOPpers to agree, or at least un-animostiy. 1. golf and, 2. disallowing third parties into national debates.

KlutzDio I Wrote:Two things lead Dems and GOPpers to agree, or at least un-animostiy. 1. golf and, 2. disallowing third parties into national debates.

Which one was allowed to debate?

A) Ross Perot

B) Ralph Nader

Each one was detrimental to a particular party, yet I don't remember anyone trying to keep Perot out of any debates. ..and golf, that's laughable.

[quote="MaumeeRocket"] [quote="Oddball"] Realizing that the ones who repeat this lie the most probably have no clue who Vinton Cerf is, or why his statement 100% refutes their lie, here is a quote that they might be able to understand:

[quote]In all fairness, it’s something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness, Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet, and the truth is—and I worked with him starting in 1978 when I got [to Congress], we were both part of a “futures group

It's just not the Spin Room without a good never-ending Dio/DrT pettifogging the entire history of the United States.

You kids play nice. Somebody's going to wind up getting hurt. :laugh:

KlutzDio I Wrote:When you've spent years perusing documents, old newspapers, large bound editions of congressional debates, actual bills presented to presidents, photos, personal accounts, etc. it really gets your goat when folks are so broad in commenting on the past.

Well if you're so dilligent then maybe you should recognize that I haven't given you this much information. The judgements you make about me, and then write toward, are assumptions for the most part. You have a pattern of this KDI, and it's why you spend so much time scolding me, when often you've missed the point entirely.

So do us both a favor. Either spend the time reading what I wrote and stop filling in blanks w/ your own decisions...or don't read my stuff at all.

Quote:The CRA was part of Johnson's Great Society.
...blah blah blah...
Johnson went ahead with the CRA as part of his Great Society, and I don't see how the president's action on this has anything to do with urban ghettos that already existed.

Once again, you insist on taking my comments in a direction I never intended. But worse, you've done that despite my specific direction to the contrary.

It's your straw man KDI, do with it what you please.

Quote:With the exception of your most recent posts, I haven't seen any criticisms from you on Bush on anything.

So in short, "except for the criticims I have written, I haven't written any criticisms." You're a big philosophy buff, break that down logically.

Quote:Bush did fail at most of that which he touched.

Bush has had some notable successes. But why is it I get accused of making generalizations?

Quote: because my criticisms of Bush are his irrationality, absurdity, he doesn't care about public opinion, intellectually incapable of running the exec. branch, bounded by religiosity and ideology, he's devisive, offers knee-jerk responses,  allows his cabinet and advisors too much leeway that borders on reduced control from the chief exec., he waffles, poor oratory skills, appears in scripted press conf. Q&A's, has not contributed to the ovearching issues of the day, and he's a spendthrift.

If I write this you'd tell me I'm too vague. *sigh* Look, some of your points have merit IMO. Others I would disagree with.

Quote:Lincoln got into office by Southern stupidity and I still don't see how this is relevant to Bush's failures or wealth of criticisms.

I won't explain it a 3rd time. The comment wasn't directed toward you. If you don't get it, then maybe that says more about you than me.

Quote:You say you maintain accuracy. I disagree. Accuracy cannot be maintained in roughly 700-1000 words. Accuracy demands book-length discussions of complex topics and issues. (more at the end of this post)

No, that's "precision". Don't get mad at me if you don't understand the difference.

Quote:Maybe I'm careless at reading your posts because it's usually some more GOP-style myth chasing and berating, i.e. Democrats are socialists, Roos. was a socialist as was Johnson

You make the assumptions, and then act as if I wrote them. That's your choice to do so, but it diminishes your scholastic reputation completely. If you can't discern between your own preconceptions and sustainable facts...you'll never get beyond writing for a newspaper.

Quote:I admit taking liberties with your initial post about how Roos. couldn't build the world economy on the TVA. Who says that's what he was trying to do with the TVA? Actually, the TVA has a rather exhilerating history and lots of controversy for the region.

I wasn't critical of the TVA. And I include this as just another example of you addressing your own ASSUMPTIONS and PRE-JUDICES instead of what I actually wrote. It's part of a trend.

Quote:I don't know what you mean by "ascribed interpretations" and you do not explain how these (whatever they are) are wildly unjustified.

Get the picture now? If you don't know what I mean by some things, then you should either:
get a dictionary or
ask me.

But, writing thousands of words directed at comments I did NOT make is not the best choice for good scholarship.

Quote:You denigrated me when I said that I think calling Bush a Hitler is ridiculous. Go read your post.

Quote:

Quote: 
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.

See, it's the Hitler analogies that I referred to. What kind of nonsense is that?

I'm assuming this is what you meant. Once again YOU have misintepreted my comments. I am AGREEING with you that the Hitler analogies are nonsense. I am NOT attributing these comments to you, nor am I criticizing you for making them.
I can understand that I was very lax in my usage of the 2nd person pronoun. I apologize for that, becaue that probably led to the misunderstanding. But, in full context I used the word "you" in ways that it was clear I didn't mean "KDI", rather I meant "a person".

Quote:Had Nixon acted differently on the war, had the GOP grown during the Nixon years, we might be a truly one-party state today.

If the GOP would react differently on environmental issues, we might truly be a one-party state today. Their indifference, and frequent cajoling of the issue provides ample evidence for left apologists who want to say that republicans are "heartless", "selfish" etc.
The big exception that the educational system is entrenched w/ folks who lean toward the democratic party (not a criticism, just an observation). That would be a hard area to uproot. Much of this "turf" was lost in the 1960's and 1970's. So, you probably recognize a better point in time that the Republicans blew it.

Quote:I don't really think the media is "watchdogs" and the media is no community service. The media is a business and if they can turn the nightly news into some kind of toned-down Jerry Springer in order to make a buck, then they will and they have. The media is a business and they cater to the market. Don't like the media? Don't give the media your patronage!

Several points here. The media still portary themselves as "watchdogs". That's what riles me. Given their heritage as the "Fourth estate", many people still accept that the media act in that role, and the media hide behind that facade when it suits their interests.
I agree that the media will sell out for the dollar...in that way they are no different than GM or Ford...who will sacrifice years of future business/profit, just to meet this qtr's numbers.
Don't give the media your patronage? I don't have CaTV, I don't subscribe to newspapers/magazines. In short, I try my best not to.

Quote:I really don't see how you can say Bush is not stupid. Apparently you've never seen one of his public speaking engagements. You've apparently never watched one of his national addresses.

As for the links, I did not disregard these. I looked at them and I did not see how in any way they contradicted, or questioned my claim that Bush is an idiot. Perhaps I should define my use of "idiot." This is one who thinks in terms of either/or and regularly contradicts themselves. Ex. You're either with us or against us....and Condoleeza Rice will not testify. (also read anything RebelKev posts) Your posted links on intelligence theories spoke about problem solving,

There was far more to the links re: intelligence than "problem solving". That suggests that you read them as casually you do my posts.

Quote:You are, and have most definitely been contentious on this board, especially in responding to me.

You know I'm surprised by this. I go out of my way not to call you names, and frankly I post agreements w/ a fair number of your points.
My perspective is that you make alot of assumptions about what I mean, and then choose to believe them even if there is little support.
This comment is in line w/ that assessment, although I fully accept it does NOT prove my point.

Quote:I think you have a deep seated hatred for me because I'm admittedly non-Christian. But that's okay too, I don't mind being hated. And if you don't hate me, that's okay too, but you do seem to follow me around on this forum.

*jaw drops open* Didn't you respond to my comment about the TVA? Didn't you respond to the thread I started on the Tokyo murder? Didn't you chide me for my joke about Mill? (I've read Mill, BTW.)
I don't hate you KDI, and I've tried to treat you w/ respect.

From my perspective, I think you expect me to hate you because you're admittedly non-Christian; and you see that expectation where it doesn't exist.

I think it's full circle here...you don't like my posts, then don't respond.