The GOP Convention - NYC 2004
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
You know, you have such power with your writing, it's really something, but I don't think you realize how far you marginalize your efforts when you go out of your way to belittle people like that.
Well, no matter. I simply think we've run the gamut from A to Z here. We're down to core ideology; stuff that can't be challenged. (shrug) Democrat versus Republican, liberal versus conservative, whatever. Not interesting to me. Sorry.
Well, no matter. I simply think we've run the gamut from A to Z here. We're down to core ideology; stuff that can't be challenged. (shrug) Democrat versus Republican, liberal versus conservative, whatever. Not interesting to me. Sorry.
To what do you refer, Pangloss? You're wonderful with the commentary but coming up short on facts. Shake your finger and tsk all you want, but why do you seek to reprimand me when you are unable to tell me what upsets you so?
Seems rather dishonest, Pangloss. And we know you're not dishonest. We know you would never represent yourself as something you're not.
I'm not upset, and I've backed up my opinion with plenty of examples. If you choose to disregard them, that just means we disagree, it doesn't make me a liar.
You really should cut out the cheap shots. They do nothing for your argument, and say far more about you than they say about me.
You really should cut out the cheap shots. They do nothing for your argument, and say far more about you than they say about me.
(Chortle!)
Pangloss, I would greatly appreciate it if you would please demonstrate the basis of your accusation. Thus far you have shown yourself perfectly unwilling to provide that basis.
This is the post you responded to by raising the issue of mudslinging.
Whence comes that issue?
As you can see, I have thrice asked you to clarify that issue: 1, 2, 3
You have thus far refused to answer the issue.
Furthermore, you have the audacity to wag your finger, "if you're not going to debate me on point then I'm really not interested."
This from someone who entered this discussion--set up to discuss the forthcoming GOP convention--in order to complain that independent thinkers shouldn't draw functional conclusions?
Furthermore--
--to what do you refer? What opinions? Do you mean these--
• It's interesting to see all this board's self-proclaimed "independent" thinkers hyping the DNC and deriding the RNC. (No examples)
• What's right would be listening to BOTH sides with an open mind, and/or not hypocritically nit-picking one side (ONLY) while putting on a face of bipartisanship and independence. (No examples)
• Well that's a nice lesson in Rush Limbaugh-esque demogoguery, but that's about it. (No examples)
• For all you and hype and tiassa talk about common sense and popular values you come across sounding sometimes like the religious right. It's not enough that you have a point of view, it has to be everyone else's point of view who has a modicum of intelligence. (No examples)
• Combined with an inability to see good ideas from the right as good ideas (they have to be spun as bad ideas because they're from the right) this really puts the kybosh on intelligent discourse with you guys sometimes. (No examples)
• This thread is just another example: Now that you've oversold the DNC as the greatest meeting of minds in half a century, you've got to go on to oversell the RNC as the worst meeting of dangerous crackpots since the Nazis nominated Hitler. (No examples; variation of Godwin's Law)
• What you want, Tiassa, is no different (NO different!) from what a radical-right friend of mine wanted from Bush. He wanted Bush to win the election and then run to the right. You want Kerry to win the election and then run to the left. What the heck is the difference? (Inappropriate example/difference of opinion)
• You guys try to convince us that the opposition is scary, but not you. (No examples)
• Damn, that was well put. You really have a way with words. (The whole post was interesting, but the quote above especially so.) (Thank you kindly.)
•*And remember -- my vote is worth a heck of a lot more than yours. (This is untenable.)
--or do you mean some larger set of examples that perhaps isn't having the intended impact on the audience (in this case, me)?
Not everything you write is insupportable. But I don't understand what problem you're having that compels you to throw your hands up, walk away, and introducing the notion of mudslinging.
I've asked you repeatedly to fill in that detail, but you've only only refused that simple courtesy and even gone so far as to take a scolding tone , yet when asked to detail your complaint, you simply bob and weave.
Again, seems rather dishonest on your part, Pangloss.
Really, take a look at that list up there. Not every point is one that requires examples, so the lack of them isn't disturbing in that sense. In the meantime, your vagaries and arrogant tone, as well as your refusal to be any more substantial in this topic than an accusatory voice droning in the background, should at least be supported by some examples.
Whence comes your hostility, Pangloss? Seriously, why are you going out of your way to trash up this topic?
We were having a pleasant enough discussion until you broke out the whine and cheese.
So please, fill me in: What's the problem?
Pangloss said:
Pangloss, I would greatly appreciate it if you would please demonstrate the basis of your accusation. Thus far you have shown yourself perfectly unwilling to provide that basis.
This is the post you responded to by raising the issue of mudslinging.
Whence comes that issue?
As you can see, I have thrice asked you to clarify that issue: 1, 2, 3
You have thus far refused to answer the issue.
Furthermore, you have the audacity to wag your finger, "if you're not going to debate me on point then I'm really not interested."
This from someone who entered this discussion--set up to discuss the forthcoming GOP convention--in order to complain that independent thinkers shouldn't draw functional conclusions?
Furthermore--
--to what do you refer? What opinions? Do you mean these--
• It's interesting to see all this board's self-proclaimed "independent" thinkers hyping the DNC and deriding the RNC. (No examples)
• What's right would be listening to BOTH sides with an open mind, and/or not hypocritically nit-picking one side (ONLY) while putting on a face of bipartisanship and independence. (No examples)
• Well that's a nice lesson in Rush Limbaugh-esque demogoguery, but that's about it. (No examples)
• For all you and hype and tiassa talk about common sense and popular values you come across sounding sometimes like the religious right. It's not enough that you have a point of view, it has to be everyone else's point of view who has a modicum of intelligence. (No examples)
• Combined with an inability to see good ideas from the right as good ideas (they have to be spun as bad ideas because they're from the right) this really puts the kybosh on intelligent discourse with you guys sometimes. (No examples)
• This thread is just another example: Now that you've oversold the DNC as the greatest meeting of minds in half a century, you've got to go on to oversell the RNC as the worst meeting of dangerous crackpots since the Nazis nominated Hitler. (No examples; variation of Godwin's Law)
• What you want, Tiassa, is no different (NO different!) from what a radical-right friend of mine wanted from Bush. He wanted Bush to win the election and then run to the right. You want Kerry to win the election and then run to the left. What the heck is the difference? (Inappropriate example/difference of opinion)
• You guys try to convince us that the opposition is scary, but not you. (No examples)
• Damn, that was well put. You really have a way with words. (The whole post was interesting, but the quote above especially so.) (Thank you kindly.)
•*And remember -- my vote is worth a heck of a lot more than yours. (This is untenable.)
--or do you mean some larger set of examples that perhaps isn't having the intended impact on the audience (in this case, me)?
Not everything you write is insupportable. But I don't understand what problem you're having that compels you to throw your hands up, walk away, and introducing the notion of mudslinging.
I've asked you repeatedly to fill in that detail, but you've only only refused that simple courtesy and even gone so far as to take a scolding tone , yet when asked to detail your complaint, you simply bob and weave.
Again, seems rather dishonest on your part, Pangloss.
Really, take a look at that list up there. Not every point is one that requires examples, so the lack of them isn't disturbing in that sense. In the meantime, your vagaries and arrogant tone, as well as your refusal to be any more substantial in this topic than an accusatory voice droning in the background, should at least be supported by some examples.
Whence comes your hostility, Pangloss? Seriously, why are you going out of your way to trash up this topic?
We were having a pleasant enough discussion until you broke out the whine and cheese.
So please, fill me in: What's the problem?
Last edited:
I'll respond since you took the time to write such a long post, so that doesn't appear to be the usual last-wordism that's so important to you and the other long-time posters around here. (That's not an attack, by the way, just something I've noticed that you guys seem to do, perhaps because of the large number of bomb-throwers that pass through here on such a transient basis. Getting the last word in seems to be really important to you guys, so I tend to let you have it.)
The "problem" (such as it is) is that I state an opinion and back it up, you disregard my supporting points, and then claim that I haven't backed up my opinion. Now that's fine, you're more than welcome to disagree with me, but what's unacceptable is that you then say that I haven't made any attempt to back up my opinions, and then you insult me (or whomever you're debating). It's really quite disrespectful and rude.
That's really all I have to say on it. Now go ahead and say "I don't do that", completely cross-referenced with 50 carefully extracted examples and fancy fontwork, and let's move on.
The "problem" (such as it is) is that I state an opinion and back it up, you disregard my supporting points, and then claim that I haven't backed up my opinion. Now that's fine, you're more than welcome to disagree with me, but what's unacceptable is that you then say that I haven't made any attempt to back up my opinions, and then you insult me (or whomever you're debating). It's really quite disrespectful and rude.
That's really all I have to say on it. Now go ahead and say "I don't do that", completely cross-referenced with 50 carefully extracted examples and fancy fontwork, and let's move on.
let's move on.
I’m backkkk…is that good thing? Anyways I’m still waiting for an explanation on how the GOP was better then the DNC over the past 100 years since you seem to disagree so vitriolically. There must such justification for such a belief…hopefully its intellectual not ideological.
I’m backkkk…is that good thing? Anyways I’m still waiting for an explanation on how the GOP was better then the DNC over the past 100 years since you seem to disagree so vitriolically. There must such justification for such a belief…hopefully its intellectual not ideological.
Well that's your opinion. Mine differs.
What does that mean then Pangloss? Yours differs, thus it must be an opinion opposed to mine correct? I just want you to expand on that opinion. See I have shown facts, and I even asked you to point out any inaccuracies, if yours differs from the facts then it must be something else based on facts. Because if I am right and you still differ that’s intellectual appeasement to “independent thinking”.
What does that mean then Pangloss? Yours differs, thus it must be an opinion opposed to mine correct? I just want you to expand on that opinion. See I have shown facts, and I even asked you to point out any inaccuracies, if yours differs from the facts then it must be something else based on facts. Because if I am right and you still differ that’s intellectual appeasement to “independent thinking”.
That's correct, mine differs.
This is very typical of you -- you refuse to conceed that a middle ground exists, much less that someone might be able to validly occupy it.
So what's the point of my putting forth my reasons for why the GOP is not BETTER than the donkeys, but EQUAL in re impact on history? You're not going to agree that my reasons are valid.
This is very typical of you -- you refuse to conceed that a middle ground exists, much less that someone might be able to validly occupy it.
So what's the point of my putting forth my reasons for why the GOP is not BETTER than the donkeys, but EQUAL in re impact on history? You're not going to agree that my reasons are valid.
Also, as I stated before, it's not possible to determine if either party has had a more serious impact, or if they are equal, without a *total* analysis. Anything less is just a statement of opinion. You believe the Democrats have had a greater impact, and posted supporting reasons. I believe the impact is about the same, and have said why I believe that. I'd be happy to give more examples, but again, what's the point? We're not capable of a 100% analysis here.
I don't understand why you keep making me repeat myself and insisting that I haven't said anything at all, when in fact I've answered all of your questions at great length. It's really quite mind-boggling.
I don't understand why you keep making me repeat myself and insisting that I haven't said anything at all, when in fact I've answered all of your questions at great length. It's really quite mind-boggling.
Reality calling . . . .
See ... that assertion seems quite false. Especially since you're only willing to make the claim and continue to sink this topic in the mire.
If it's so unacceptable to you, it should be fairly easy to demonstrate your point. It's not like I'm asking a tremendous effort of you.
Oh? How so?
And right now that seems a fantasy of your own creation, as you're unwilling to explain what you mean by such an accusation.
What a shame. I was hoping you could at least show me that you're not raising a straw man for completely ridiculous purposes. I mean, I can't figure out what's so wrong with this topic that you can only criticize and complain and not contribute. And you simply refuse to explain that.
Given your tone of condescension, Pangloss, I really do wonder what you're complaining about. Of course, you don't want to make that clear, so there's not much I can do to alleviate the situation.
So please ... stop with this game of yours. You're only embarrassing yourself.
Pangloss said:
See ... that assertion seems quite false. Especially since you're only willing to make the claim and continue to sink this topic in the mire.
If it's so unacceptable to you, it should be fairly easy to demonstrate your point. It's not like I'm asking a tremendous effort of you.
Oh? How so?
And right now that seems a fantasy of your own creation, as you're unwilling to explain what you mean by such an accusation.
What a shame. I was hoping you could at least show me that you're not raising a straw man for completely ridiculous purposes. I mean, I can't figure out what's so wrong with this topic that you can only criticize and complain and not contribute. And you simply refuse to explain that.
Given your tone of condescension, Pangloss, I really do wonder what you're complaining about. Of course, you don't want to make that clear, so there's not much I can do to alleviate the situation.
So please ... stop with this game of yours. You're only embarrassing yourself.
Last edited:
This is very typical of you -- you refuse to conceed that a middle ground exists, much less that someone might be able to validly occupy it.
The reason why is very simple, because there is no such thing as a middle ground, a middle ground is a rejection of facts. A middle ground is an emotional over intellectual stance; it is so one can play both sides or to look for a solution that is best for both sides. I am not putting down the middle ground all I am saying is that it’s intellectually disingenuous. I believe in what Nietzsche said, it’s impossible to have a perspectiveless perspective that’s something you want to achieve but can’t. Since we are unable to be objective (devoid of emotion, or bias) I am asking you what have republicans have done that negates the advantages that I outlined over the past 100 years.
So what's the point of my putting forth my reasons for why the GOP is not BETTER than the donkeys, but EQUAL in re impact on history? You're not going to agree that my reasons are valid.
You haven’t even tried…and I will have to quote Tiassa on this one: And right now that seems a fantasy of your own creation, as you're unwilling to explain what you mean by such an accusation.
The reason why is very simple, because there is no such thing as a middle ground, a middle ground is a rejection of facts. A middle ground is an emotional over intellectual stance; it is so one can play both sides or to look for a solution that is best for both sides. I am not putting down the middle ground all I am saying is that it’s intellectually disingenuous. I believe in what Nietzsche said, it’s impossible to have a perspectiveless perspective that’s something you want to achieve but can’t. Since we are unable to be objective (devoid of emotion, or bias) I am asking you what have republicans have done that negates the advantages that I outlined over the past 100 years.
So what's the point of my putting forth my reasons for why the GOP is not BETTER than the donkeys, but EQUAL in re impact on history? You're not going to agree that my reasons are valid.
You haven’t even tried…and I will have to quote Tiassa on this one: And right now that seems a fantasy of your own creation, as you're unwilling to explain what you mean by such an accusation.
Well we're waxing philosophical here, but this is a statement I can disagree with pretty comfortably:
If that's true we might as well all pack up and go home.
At any rate, I've compiled a short collection of republican "positives" to counterbalance your claim that democrats have done more good than republicans. Bear in mind that I'm not saying that the present administration is an example of any of this. Nor am I saying that it's a complete analysis. Like you, I'm just listing a few reasons to back up my claim.
You will now, of course, proceed to deny that any of these are valid, and go on to claim that I've not backed up my opinion, continuing to say that I "haven't tried". Whatever. I really don't understand your and Tiassa's consistent need to attack your opponents, but it's your problem, not mine.
---------------------
- Reagan (you've already rejected him, so no need to repeat yourself, I'm just putting him in here for the record; I consider him a positive impact)
- Local Republicans (I'll refrain from expanding on this because I agree with your point that it's really the national scene we need to focus on in terms of the larger impact of the two parties; I just mention for the record that I believe there have been many positive impacts of local Republicans, just as there have been many positive impacts by local Democrats.)
- John McCain (I believe we agree he's a good man, so I won't bother to expand on this)
- Serving as a counterpoint to the Democrats (especially during the rise of segregationism which dominated the Democratic party for many years, especially in the South)
- You mentioned Lincoln, but I'll add the passing the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments
& Southern reconstruction
- Teddy Roosevelt & birth of American Progressive movement
- Eisenhower, protecting the country from communism, but intelligently (opposing British/French colonial actions in the Suez Canal -- this was a time when citizens in the Middle East actually saw us as the GOOD guys)
- Pushed internationalism/globalism ahead of the conservative, isolationist Democrats, especially in the post-war years and into the 1950s.
- Set the (largely failed) tone (in sharp contrast with today's GOP) for fiscal responsibility (balanced budget) in the 1940s and 1950s.
- Have always traditionally stood against tax increases and in favor of tax decreases.
- For most of US history from 1952-1994 (right?), congress was controlled by Democrats, but most of them were *conservative* democrats, not progressive/liberal ones.
- Provide a voice for free-market capitalism (such as it is) in the face of Democratic movement towards socialism.
- Adopted women's right to vote before the Democrats.
- Jacob Javits - benefits to seniors and retirees, authority to make war....
- Barry Goldwater - (would have voted for the 1964 civil rights act if affirmative action had been removed); agreed that the federal government had to be the one to stop segregation, not the states, something many democrats supported, especially in the south
- More positive/progressive/moderate/"good" Republicans (my opinion, of course): Charles Evans Hughes, Wendell Wilkie, Thomas Dewey, Nelson Rockefeller, Earl Warren, William Scranton, George Norris, Margaret Chase Smith, Elizabeth Dole, Bronson Cutting, Elliot Richardson.
------
There. I've backed it up -- AGAIN and MORE. If you say again that I haven't tried, it'll be the last discussion we have. I hope that's clear, as I don't plan to repeat myself again.
If that's true we might as well all pack up and go home.
At any rate, I've compiled a short collection of republican "positives" to counterbalance your claim that democrats have done more good than republicans. Bear in mind that I'm not saying that the present administration is an example of any of this. Nor am I saying that it's a complete analysis. Like you, I'm just listing a few reasons to back up my claim.
You will now, of course, proceed to deny that any of these are valid, and go on to claim that I've not backed up my opinion, continuing to say that I "haven't tried". Whatever. I really don't understand your and Tiassa's consistent need to attack your opponents, but it's your problem, not mine.
---------------------
- Reagan (you've already rejected him, so no need to repeat yourself, I'm just putting him in here for the record; I consider him a positive impact)
- Local Republicans (I'll refrain from expanding on this because I agree with your point that it's really the national scene we need to focus on in terms of the larger impact of the two parties; I just mention for the record that I believe there have been many positive impacts of local Republicans, just as there have been many positive impacts by local Democrats.)
- John McCain (I believe we agree he's a good man, so I won't bother to expand on this)
- Serving as a counterpoint to the Democrats (especially during the rise of segregationism which dominated the Democratic party for many years, especially in the South)
- You mentioned Lincoln, but I'll add the passing the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments
& Southern reconstruction
- Teddy Roosevelt & birth of American Progressive movement
- Eisenhower, protecting the country from communism, but intelligently (opposing British/French colonial actions in the Suez Canal -- this was a time when citizens in the Middle East actually saw us as the GOOD guys)
- Pushed internationalism/globalism ahead of the conservative, isolationist Democrats, especially in the post-war years and into the 1950s.
- Set the (largely failed) tone (in sharp contrast with today's GOP) for fiscal responsibility (balanced budget) in the 1940s and 1950s.
- Have always traditionally stood against tax increases and in favor of tax decreases.
- For most of US history from 1952-1994 (right?), congress was controlled by Democrats, but most of them were *conservative* democrats, not progressive/liberal ones.
- Provide a voice for free-market capitalism (such as it is) in the face of Democratic movement towards socialism.
- Adopted women's right to vote before the Democrats.
- Jacob Javits - benefits to seniors and retirees, authority to make war....
- Barry Goldwater - (would have voted for the 1964 civil rights act if affirmative action had been removed); agreed that the federal government had to be the one to stop segregation, not the states, something many democrats supported, especially in the south
- More positive/progressive/moderate/"good" Republicans (my opinion, of course): Charles Evans Hughes, Wendell Wilkie, Thomas Dewey, Nelson Rockefeller, Earl Warren, William Scranton, George Norris, Margaret Chase Smith, Elizabeth Dole, Bronson Cutting, Elliot Richardson.
------
There. I've backed it up -- AGAIN and MORE. If you say again that I haven't tried, it'll be the last discussion we have. I hope that's clear, as I don't plan to repeat myself again.
If that's true we might as well all pack up and go home.
Of course it is true; the middle ground is a compromise between two positions. The Middle ground doesn’t have facts; if anything the middle ground is even more subjective then the other grounds because it has to weigh quite arbitrarily both sides to determine who is more “right”, because I don’t believe there has ever really been a perfectly balanced middle ground. To have no opinion on a subject is impossible.
Whatever. I really don't understand your and Tiassa's consistent need to attack your opponents, but it's your problem, not mine.
At least I haven’t attacked you, I haven’t called you names. What I was doing was trying to stop the mere rhetorical responses you were spewing out. You talk a lot but very little substance…
- Reagan (you've already rejected him, so no need to repeat yourself, I'm just putting him in here for the record; I consider him a positive impact)
I rejected him? That’s news, please don’t change my words please all I said is that history is still out on his presidency.
Serving as a counterpoint to the Democrats (especially during the rise of segregationism which dominated the Democratic party for many years, especially in the South)
Who was the one who actively tried to get rid of it? Remember Trent Lott with the infamous support of the dead bigots support for a segregated America in the 1948 election against Truman? It was under Kennedy and Johnson that the got rid of that national shame.
- You mentioned Lincoln, but I'll add the passing the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments
& Southern reconstruction
Note I kept on saying the past 100 years the 20th century, please pay attention.
Teddy Roosevelt & birth of American Progressive movement
I have acknowledged his presidency as a great one, but his actions pale in comparison to the great democratic presidents.
Eisenhower, protecting the country from communism, but intelligently (opposing British/French colonial actions in the Suez Canal -- this was a time when citizens in the Middle East actually saw us as the GOOD guys)
Granted, but that’s about it…it was Truman who really saved Europe from communism; the US was never really at stake from a “Red takeover”. Eisenhower was not a spectacular president at all…so the 1956 action by the US was good but not great. Eishenhower was simply following democratic principles.
Pushed internationalism/globalism ahead of the conservative, isolationist Democrats, especially in the post-war years and into the 1950s.
It was the republicans who were against the League of Nations, the Marshall Plan, and I’d bet the UN (not sure about that one), so I don’t see the justification for this accusation.
Set the (largely failed) tone (in sharp contrast with today's GOP) for fiscal responsibility (balanced budget) in the 1940s and 1950s.
Talk is cheap it was Clinton who actually did the work…
Have always traditionally stood against tax increases and in favor of tax decreases.
Look now, that’s a cognitive response. I don’t see how that would have helped in the depression…lol. Also that’s a policy not a presidential thing. So please let’s stick to presidential actions not rhetoric.
For most of US history from 1952-1994 (right?), congress was controlled by Democrats, but most of them were *conservative* democrats, not progressive/liberal ones.
Still…Democrats…
Provide a voice for free-market capitalism (such as it is) in the face of Democratic movement towards socialism.
Keynesianism was used by Republicans just as much as Democrats.
Adopted women's right to vote before the Democrats.
Wasn’t it the Democrats who gave women suffrage?
There. I've backed it up -- AGAIN and MORE.
Not really because the vast majority of your work did not address the issue, I didn’t mention anything about congress or ideas of the democratic party in my comparisons I mentioned presidents and their policies, you mentioned Eishenhower and Teddy…that’s it! I think I proved my point.
Of course it is true; the middle ground is a compromise between two positions. The Middle ground doesn’t have facts; if anything the middle ground is even more subjective then the other grounds because it has to weigh quite arbitrarily both sides to determine who is more “right”, because I don’t believe there has ever really been a perfectly balanced middle ground. To have no opinion on a subject is impossible.
Whatever. I really don't understand your and Tiassa's consistent need to attack your opponents, but it's your problem, not mine.
At least I haven’t attacked you, I haven’t called you names. What I was doing was trying to stop the mere rhetorical responses you were spewing out. You talk a lot but very little substance…
- Reagan (you've already rejected him, so no need to repeat yourself, I'm just putting him in here for the record; I consider him a positive impact)
I rejected him? That’s news, please don’t change my words please all I said is that history is still out on his presidency.
Serving as a counterpoint to the Democrats (especially during the rise of segregationism which dominated the Democratic party for many years, especially in the South)
Who was the one who actively tried to get rid of it? Remember Trent Lott with the infamous support of the dead bigots support for a segregated America in the 1948 election against Truman? It was under Kennedy and Johnson that the got rid of that national shame.
- You mentioned Lincoln, but I'll add the passing the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments
& Southern reconstruction
Note I kept on saying the past 100 years the 20th century, please pay attention.
Teddy Roosevelt & birth of American Progressive movement
I have acknowledged his presidency as a great one, but his actions pale in comparison to the great democratic presidents.
Eisenhower, protecting the country from communism, but intelligently (opposing British/French colonial actions in the Suez Canal -- this was a time when citizens in the Middle East actually saw us as the GOOD guys)
Granted, but that’s about it…it was Truman who really saved Europe from communism; the US was never really at stake from a “Red takeover”. Eisenhower was not a spectacular president at all…so the 1956 action by the US was good but not great. Eishenhower was simply following democratic principles.
Pushed internationalism/globalism ahead of the conservative, isolationist Democrats, especially in the post-war years and into the 1950s.
It was the republicans who were against the League of Nations, the Marshall Plan, and I’d bet the UN (not sure about that one), so I don’t see the justification for this accusation.
Set the (largely failed) tone (in sharp contrast with today's GOP) for fiscal responsibility (balanced budget) in the 1940s and 1950s.
Talk is cheap it was Clinton who actually did the work…
Have always traditionally stood against tax increases and in favor of tax decreases.
Look now, that’s a cognitive response. I don’t see how that would have helped in the depression…lol. Also that’s a policy not a presidential thing. So please let’s stick to presidential actions not rhetoric.
For most of US history from 1952-1994 (right?), congress was controlled by Democrats, but most of them were *conservative* democrats, not progressive/liberal ones.
Still…Democrats…
Provide a voice for free-market capitalism (such as it is) in the face of Democratic movement towards socialism.
Keynesianism was used by Republicans just as much as Democrats.
Adopted women's right to vote before the Democrats.
Wasn’t it the Democrats who gave women suffrage?
There. I've backed it up -- AGAIN and MORE.
Not really because the vast majority of your work did not address the issue, I didn’t mention anything about congress or ideas of the democratic party in my comparisons I mentioned presidents and their policies, you mentioned Eishenhower and Teddy…that’s it! I think I proved my point.
Sure, I agree with that. In fact one cannot occupy the middle ground indefinitely, at least insofar as sooner or later a position is required, such as casting a vote. I understand your point here.
But I also think that you and I appraise the value of middle ground very differently. I see value in compromise. Power. Progress. Forward motion. As opposed to ideology (on any side), which leads to stalemate, lack of progress, and even retrogression.
I agree that the balance doesn't have to be perfect.
I also agree with the general notion that one of the two, either Democrats or Republicans have had a greater contribution to society. I just think the scale is pretty close; closer than we can determine here.
Sorry. And I'll go along with that.
But my point was, who were Kennedy and Johnson fighting? Not Republicans -- DEMOCRATS. Conservative southern Democratic senators and governors.
Working with... drum roll please... a Republican congress from '94 on (and congress actually has far more control over the budget than the President does).
Don't see your point here, sorry. I understand what Keynsianism is in general, if you want to take it from there to expand on your meaning a bit.
Like I told you before, this is a waste of time, because you're not going to agree with my reasons. (shrug) We're just throwing opinions back and forth here. But it seemed to be important to you that I back up my opinions, so I've done that. I don't know what else to tell you.
But I also think that you and I appraise the value of middle ground very differently. I see value in compromise. Power. Progress. Forward motion. As opposed to ideology (on any side), which leads to stalemate, lack of progress, and even retrogression.
The middle position is a position that is obviously the one that gets the job done best, bipartisanship is the best form of government, but even that has its down sides. The concept of “middle ground” is unto itself a ideological position sure it isn’t extreme but it is ideological in the sense that two diametrically opposed positions are innately bad because they are too extreme. But sometimes we need a backbone and get ready to get objective, and the middle ground cannot be more objective.
I also agree with the general notion that one of the two, either Democrats or Republicans have had a greater contribution to society. I just think the scale is pretty close; closer than we can determine here.
By all accounts in the 20th century that was the Democratic Party.
But my point was, who were Kennedy and Johnson fighting? Not Republicans -- DEMOCRATS. Conservative southern Democratic senators and governors.
Dixiecrats to be much more accurate, but yes the south was a democratic hold back then (how times have changed). Granted the Democrats in Washington were fighting the Democrats in regional politics, but as I was talking about presidents not regional politics, local politics either. So in a greater perspective the Democrats still came out on top.
Working with... drum roll please... a Republican congress from '94 on (and congress actually has far more control over the budget than the President does).
Well it has to be signed by the President, that’s an anti-climax. Also since 2000 when the GOP only strengthened their control over the houses, the budget deficit is in excess of $450 billion, the GOP has basically squandered $10 trillion.
Don't see your point here, sorry. I understand what Keynesianism is in general, if you want to take it from there to expand on your meaning a bit.
I don’t see your point, what did you mean by Socialism? Because to my knowledge the Democrats started with Keynesianism economics under FDR and wasn’t given up until Reagan, Nixon screwed it up pretty badly along with supply problems. What do you consider “socialism”…
Like I told you before, this is a waste of time, because you're not going to agree with my reasons.
No you didn’t follow the criteria, I only mentioned presidents you went on the tangents. That’s not reasonable or fair.
The middle position is a position that is obviously the one that gets the job done best, bipartisanship is the best form of government, but even that has its down sides. The concept of “middle ground” is unto itself a ideological position sure it isn’t extreme but it is ideological in the sense that two diametrically opposed positions are innately bad because they are too extreme. But sometimes we need a backbone and get ready to get objective, and the middle ground cannot be more objective.
I also agree with the general notion that one of the two, either Democrats or Republicans have had a greater contribution to society. I just think the scale is pretty close; closer than we can determine here.
By all accounts in the 20th century that was the Democratic Party.
But my point was, who were Kennedy and Johnson fighting? Not Republicans -- DEMOCRATS. Conservative southern Democratic senators and governors.
Dixiecrats to be much more accurate, but yes the south was a democratic hold back then (how times have changed). Granted the Democrats in Washington were fighting the Democrats in regional politics, but as I was talking about presidents not regional politics, local politics either. So in a greater perspective the Democrats still came out on top.
Working with... drum roll please... a Republican congress from '94 on (and congress actually has far more control over the budget than the President does).
Well it has to be signed by the President, that’s an anti-climax. Also since 2000 when the GOP only strengthened their control over the houses, the budget deficit is in excess of $450 billion, the GOP has basically squandered $10 trillion.
Don't see your point here, sorry. I understand what Keynesianism is in general, if you want to take it from there to expand on your meaning a bit.
I don’t see your point, what did you mean by Socialism? Because to my knowledge the Democrats started with Keynesianism economics under FDR and wasn’t given up until Reagan, Nixon screwed it up pretty badly along with supply problems. What do you consider “socialism”…
Like I told you before, this is a waste of time, because you're not going to agree with my reasons.
No you didn’t follow the criteria, I only mentioned presidents you went on the tangents. That’s not reasonable or fair.