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.