0
   

2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Feb, 2003 01:32 pm
Media bias is a common occurance, and that will not change. We just live with it. As for comparing Edwards and Lott's, both politicians, Lott is a non-issue in politics. No media bias needed here. c.i.
0 Replies
 
Mapleleaf
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Feb, 2003 02:31 pm
C.I.,

Quote:
This country has suffered more in his (Bush) two years in office than any president serving his full term. c.i.


You may consider yourself an independent thinker, but you are quick to revert to opinion statements. You may be more qualified than I, but I'm not sure I could provide a full comparative statement proving your point.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Feb, 2003 04:31 pm
Quote:
This country has suffered more in his (Bush) two years in office than any president serving his full term. c.i.


** During the Jefferson Administration the country was plunged into one of the worst depressions in our history. His Embargo Act virtually destroyed American trade, and the economy fell to almost zero. No statistics were kept, but without doubt unemployment was far worse than anything since the Great Depression in the mid-20th century.

** The Democratic-Republican Warhawks drove the United States into the War of 1812 with dreams of snatching Canada from a Britain occupied by the Napoleonic Wars. The New England states threatened to leave the Union, and the Federalist Party of Washington never recovered. The result was a disaster on almost every front. The Capitol was burned, and the chesapeake Bay was totally dominated by British naval forces. Only Jackson's victory at New Orleans with the help of pirates provided any solace to a miserable experience.

** Andrew Jackson rode his fame as an Indian fighter and hero of 1812 came into office. During Jackson's administration the nation came close to destruction when the South tried Nullification on for size. Jackson spent a tremendous effort trying to destroy the national banking system, thereby causing another depression during his successor, Martin Van Buren's administration. Though the Little Magician was only partially to blame, his adminstration was so unpopular that he was easily swept from office by Harrison.

** The suffering endured by all Americans during Lincoln's administration would be hard to match. Roughly 600,000 died as families were torn apart, and not infrequently faced one another on the battleground. The Union was in real danger of destruction, and the economy was shattered. The loss in property would have been in the trillions if calculated by today's dollar. There was martial law, and government censorship. The draft made it's first appearance and provoked riots in the large cities. Thousands were left hopeless, homeless and on the road. Hunger and hardship were everywhere.

** Those who suffered under the administrations of Johnson and Grant were legion. These were years when half the country was under military occupation, where carpet baggers and corrupt politicians exploited victory for their own ends, profit and revenge. Newly freed slaves were cast adrift with little assistance in finding new lives as free men. Cronyism flourished like never before, and only occasionally since.

** The rise of monopolies and Trusts during the last twenty years of the 19th century created one of the greatest gulfs between rich and poor in the nation's history. The Gilded Age witnessed excesses that are now happily in the past. Little children labored in coal mines and among the looms of mills for pennies, while railroad and steel barons accumulated greater relative wealth than modern tycoons. The power of the mighty was almost unchecked, while the "little guy" became powerless to avoid exploitation. There were more depressions, these more often caused by the personal greed of a few.

** President's Harding's administration was filled with scandals and the beginning to Prohibition, but it was during the Hoover Administration that the Market fell and the great depression began. Not only was the nation thrown into economic chaos with thousands out of work. The Dust Bowl struck and drove farmers from the land their grandparents homesteaded. The rails were crowded with young men searching for any sort of work. Gaunt-eyed children lined up for a cup of watery soup. There was no social net to keep starvation and homelessness at bay. demagogs appeared here, just as they did in Germany and Italy. Stalin's ComIntern had little trouble recruiting Americans into socialist movements. Soldiers with bayonets were used to quell Veteran's demonstrations in Washington.

** During LBJ's adminstration the American People demonstrated in greater numbers than any seen in 2002. Thousands fled to Canada and other nations to avoid serving in the military. Riots were common in many American cities. The Civil Rights Movement had a violent side, as the Black Panthers and the Symbianise Liberation Army strutted around with automatic weapons and robbed banks. Police officers were ambushed and bombs went off on campuses and in other public places. The cost of the Great Society threatened to indebt Americans well into the 22nd century, and the People lost faith in their government. The military was demoralized, and many no longer wore their uniforms with pride.

That's nearly a dozen administrations where the country suffered more than during the time Bush has been in office. Actually, I'm a little at a loss to identify much suffering at all that can be traced to the Shrub's administration. The market is not good, but that may be as much the fault of the Clinton years or just a normal down-turn as anything done by the Shrub. Unemployment is up, but still less far less than 5%. Productivity is up, and the currency is holding its value. The nation has been struck by cowardly foreign ideologues, but the administration has maintained an aggressive pursuit of those responsible and those who make such attacks possible.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Feb, 2003 05:05 pm
Of the seven presidents you listed, I'm only interested in only one. Going back over 100 years proves nothing; different world today. As for LBJ, why don't you try listing some of the good things he's done for this country? Maybe, in your bias, that's impossible for you. You're at a loss to see the damage GWBush has wrought, because you don't wish to look at the negatives. You say our currency is holding up. Wrong! The US dollar against the Euro is at its lowest rate in three years. If you doubt my claim, go to <Yahoo Finance> for this information. You say our economy is holding up. On the west coast, our unemployment rate is 6.3 percent. You can look up any government stats for this info. I live in Silicon Valley; our unemployment rate is 7 percent. I don't blame all of this on GWBush, but he's not helped it any, either. If you want to talk about this administration war with Iraq, most of the citizens of this world disagree with it. You say we have allies to support GWBush's war with Iraq. Well, London just had the largest peace time demonstration against war with Iraq. You want to talk about GWBush's tax cuts? Well, Chairman Greenspan said that's a bad idea. What good has GWBush done for our economy? He's doing a darn good job of thrashing it with his march to war. This unsettling has ruined the transportation and leisure travel industries in most parts of this world. Most airlines are going broke. Most transportation departments in this country are going broke. GWBush has taken away many of our first line defense workers in this country, and shipped them to the Gulf. Our local police and fire departments are all short-handed. If you have watched our stock market, the potential war with Iraq has done a good job of ruining most investors. This uncertainty of war is blamed for much of why our economy is not improving, and why the market is below 8000 on the DOW. How does this administration reconciile the spending of billions more for this war, increased cost of homeland security, and cut taxes? Any ten year old can tell you that you can't spend a great deal more than you have in your pocket. My initial claim was that GWBush has done more harm in two years than any president in four years. That still holds. c.i.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Feb, 2003 05:09 pm
Well done, Cicerone. I keep noticing that Bush supporters try to deflect attention to other matters rather than actually defend the administration's actions. Funny -- I notice the administration does the very same thing!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Feb, 2003 05:21 pm
As for President Harding, here's the true dope. The world was already in a depression. By 1923 the country was on the road to recovery. Harding died of a heart attack in San Francisco in 1923. c.i.

http://oasis.bellevue.k12.wa.us/sammamish/sstudies.dir/hist_docs.dir/grtdepression.mn.html
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Feb, 2003 05:49 pm
Well now Cicero, you stated categorically that

Quote:
This country has suffered more in his (Bush) two years in office than any president serving his full term. c.i.

(my emphasis)

That is demonstrably not so. This country has suffered much worse under a whole slew of Presidents of both parties. BTW, I listed 8 Presidents by name, and alluded to five others whose administrations scarcely varied in their policies and the miseries endured by most Americans. Of course, you're not interested, because the facts don't conform to your exaggerated statement.

If I'm wrong and the employment figures are 7% rather than 5%, the difference to the larger picture is unchanged. 93% of Americans are gainfully employed, that sounds pretty good to me considering the unemployment figures in many countries. Unemployment isn't even close to that during the Great Depression, or during several of the economic downturns since. I have grave reservations about this administrations economic and tax policies, as I've said several times already, but things have been far worse in the past. I dislike having a large national debt, porkbarrel projects, and deficit spending. Of course, you aren't interested in that because it would make your attacks on Bush seem petty. I'm sorry, I forgot you've just said that you "don't blame it all on Bush". The persistent tone of your remarks led me to believe otherwise.

Did LBJ do some good things? Were his intentions honorable and well-meaning. You bettcha Red Ryder. LBJ was a tragic figure. A poor boy who only wanted to give everyone the things he craved as a child during the Great Depression. He was more successful than many historians want to admit, but his administration was a time of great hardship and suffering for many Americans, and for the world at large. Talk about running up the National Debt! LBJ's programs are still among the most expensive in the nation's history. Remember, you said that no other President presided over as much suffering as the Shrub? The suffering during those long LBJ years was much greater than anything we are currently experiencing.

The exchange dollar value against the Euro may be down, but that hasn't anything to do with Bush. Our currency is still the preferred coin of the world. The inflation experienced by other currencies can run over 100% per year, but the good old greenback remains relatively stable. Mr. Greenspan's opinion is well-worth listening to, he has been right far more than he has been wrong. Much of the fat times this nation experienced during the 90s can be attributed to Greenspan's leadership. He has flown a cautionary flag, I hope that the administration and Congress will heed his warnings. I want things to improve. after all, I'm one of those investors whose assets have been slashed by the public lack of confidence in the stock market.

I do approve spending whatever is necessary to provide for the security of the United States. That security is presently at risk, and the President's effort at reducing that risk by disarming Saddam Hussein is believed warranted by people just as sincere and well-meaning as you are. This country is not governed by plebesites, but under the provisions of a Constitution that places the responsiblity on the shoulders of one person, the President of the United States. That same Constitution provides for the Executive to be checked by the power of Congress, and the Supreme Court. They are doing their duty, and should be supported.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Feb, 2003 05:57 pm
The country was on the road to recovery in 1923? The market didn't crash until 24OCT29. Things steadily got worse from that point on. Looking back at my post, I find that I used Hardings name when I meant Hoover. The typo should have been obvious from the sentence construction, but I should have caught the error before hitting the submit button. The nation suffered terribly during the 1930's, and only recovered as production soard during WWII.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Feb, 2003 06:00 pm
Students, close your history books, rise and proceed to another topic.

This topic is a bit more topical, thank you very much.

White House Hopefuls Split on Iraq War
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Feb, 2003 06:06 pm
PD,

Not easy to ignor history, because it is our knowledge of history that provides the foundation for our analysis, and opinions. What the world is today was forged in the fires of the past. The choices we make for the future are inexorably bound up with what we've become as a result of history. Some believe that Saddam can be contained, controlled, and rendered harmless, but all of history seems to contradict that pleasant notion.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Feb, 2003 06:10 pm
How can you blame Harding for the 1929 crash when he's been dead for six years? Lot'sa logic there, my friend. Also, a lot of 'plebesites' in this world are against this war. I'd go for the sentiments of this world way before I go with the shrubs. Must have 'some' meaning to this shrub. Maybe, not. The UN is working to disarm Saddam. What more ya want? Blood? Yeah, I guess you do. BTW, you missed out on a lot of the stuff I presented earlier. I knew you couldn't say anthing good about LBJ. The value of the dollar against is not "may" be down, it "IS" down. Too hard for you to admit anything? Who's talking about the inflation rate of other countries? Did I bring up that subject? Emphatically, "NO!" Inflation doesn't mean much to the the people who have no money and no jobs. So, 93 percent have jobs? Nothing like looking at the famlies without jobs that can't feed or shelter their families. They just happen to be only 7 percent of our population. You're such a good hearted person, I wouldn't want to change that! Yes, we have more middle class families asking charities for food. The same kind of mindset as the shrub. Fu*k the poor bastards. c.i.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Feb, 2003 06:42 pm
1. I've already corrected the misspoken reference in re. Harding and Black Thursday. It was an unintentional, and obvious typo. Harding had his own problems, and I only meant that they paled beside those during Hoover's administration.

2. The United States is not run by any plebesites, in Britain, Australia, France, or even Baghdad and Pyong-Yang. And a damn good thing to given the apparent ease with which crowds can be assembled to denounce us.

3. The UN has been "working" to disarm Saddam for 12 years with less than zero success. Saddam has recently made some cosmetic gestures for PR reasons only because there is a credible threat of actually doing it.

4. I do read your remarks, probably with more attention than those of rational people like Timber, George, Steissd, Tres, and Perception. You, on the otherhand, seem to have missed the several nice things I've had to say about LBJ both recently and in earlier posts.

5. You're right I was the one to mention that the American economy is not on the ropes, ready to collapse under the insane policies of a Republican administration. Your assertion that our economy is in the toilet is not universally held. The American economy has been better, and it has been much, much worse. Is 93% employment a bad thing? True, we would all prefer it to be greater, but 100% employment is unattainable outside a dictatorship. The reasonable expectation of "full employment" I think is around 97%. There certainly is room for improvement, but the situation is not catestrophic.

I suppose you are converting all your cash into Euros, since you seem to believe them better than greenbacks. I think you're wrong, but that's what makes a horse race. I really do have more respect for you than you seem to believe, though I sometimes think that you do not recipicate the feelings. Sorry about that, but I just calls em as I sees em.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Feb, 2003 06:43 pm
You fellas ain't readin' each others' posts.

This is waaaaaaaaaaay off topic. Create a thread on the Great Depression please.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Feb, 2003 06:59 pm
If you calls em like you sees em, you must be blind. I didn't say anywhere on A2K that I was converting my US dollars to Euro. I also never claimed Euros were better than greenbacks. As for feelings, you told us you are "analytical" and not emotional. c.i.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Feb, 2003 07:22 pm
Quote:
The US dollar against the Euro is at its lowest rate in three years.


Quote:
The value of the dollar against is not "may" be down, it "IS" down.


Sure sounds like you believe the Euro is a better value than the dollar to me. Since you're convinced that the current administration is ruining the economy, it would only make since to protect ones assets by moving them to a sounder currency.

I do try to remain objective and analytical, but as I've said before -- I'm only human and prone to all the failiings that flesh is heir to. Though my opinions are clear, I believe that in each instance I try to provide the rational for the conclusion. I try to always give the other viewpoint the benefit of the doubt, and credit folks with being sincere in their beliefs. I try never to condemn a person or idea without first weighing the evidence carefully. I know I fail and make mistakes, some of them lulus. My youthful idealism blinded me to the value of pursuing Communist containment in Vietnam, but I got over it.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Feb, 2003 07:34 pm
Asherman, I've only stated "facts." Not my preference. c.i.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Feb, 2003 09:36 pm
Asherman, Your skills at composition are way up there at the top of the heap - even outside of A2K. In that regard, you have all of my respect and admiration. Your word skills will always outshine mine in more ways than one. You're a tough debator, and few on A2K are at your level of ability and knowledge. I can only talk to a very narrow range of issues. On those few items on which we disagree, I will challenge you with all the muster I can generate from my small pool of knowledge. I'll be the first to admit that I make many mistakes. When I catch myself, I always apologize to the person I felt I offended. My discussions with you are no different. c.i.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Feb, 2003 10:37 pm
(sighing, straining to remember the subject)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Feb, 2003 10:56 pm
snood, Just for you:

2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders


Sorry for the tangent. c.i.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Feb, 2003 08:42 am
AshermanAsherman
Asherman
Phone line has been down for several days and am just skimming over some of responses. I would like to just correct your statement regarding unemployment percentages. These percentages do not reflect the vast number of people who are no longer on the labor market nor do the reflect the underemployed. Consequently 7% unemployment does not mean 93% employment.
Regarding the American dollar. There is talk that oil may soon be priced by the Euro rather than the Dollar. That does not portend well for our dollar.
I should also note that by 05 or 06 because of our anticipated deficit the yearly interest on the debt will be greater than the cost of our military spending and homeland security combined. If my wife used my credit card the way this administration uses the treasuries funds I would lock her in the closet. Someone should do the same to Bush and CO.
You also indicated that Bush having been elected president need not listen to the will or mood of the country. There is no doubt that he feels as you do. I should point out that he did not receive a mandate when elected if he was indeed elected.and yes he has an obligation to mind the will of the people. He was not elected dictator. Whether Bush is the worst president we have ever had or just ranks among the top few is irrelevant. For this time and place he is a disaster for the nation the American people and the world.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/10/2025 at 03:58:00