How dangerous is the Bush administration?

Okie

okie wrote:

This is comic justice. So Rumsfeld's saying was made by the liberals hero, Teddy Roosevelt, the guy that started all the national parks, the guy the environmentalists worship! Thats a good one. I love it. If Teddy made it up, he must have believed it, so don't try to figure out how Rumsfeld is the only one at fault. It was Rumsfeld's motto is your reasoning. If you originate it, you have no blame or credit I guess is that the reasoning? What a joke!

Okie, wrong again:

In office, Roosevelt was a combination of liberal and conservative. He used the Sherman Act of 1890 as an antitrust weapon against the meatpacking industry, the railroads, and the big oil companies. His administration passed the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act, thus establishing the authority of the federal government to protect consumers. Other legislation strengthened the power of the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate railroad charges. His intervention in a coal strike in Pennsylvania led by the United Mine Workers set a precedent for future government intervention in labor relations. He appointed Oliver Wendell Holmes, now recognized as one of the most distinguished of justices, to the US Supreme Court.

0 Replies

Re: Enough already

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Enough already with everyone giving Rumsfeld credit for the statement:
"Aggressive fighting for the right is the noblest sport the world affords."

The author of the statement was President Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919)

It was found in Roosevelt's papers in his state papers as Governor and President, 1899-1909 (vol. 15 of The Works of Theodore Roosevelt, national ed.), p. xxxiii (1926) by Gifford Pinchot and published in his book "Roosevelt as President."

Pinchot commented, "There are few sayings of his that hold for me so much of him as this."

BBB

thanks B...didn't know the origin of Rummie's fun plaque.

0 Replies

Laws apply to me unless I decide they don't.

Quote:

3 GOP senators blast Bush bid to bypass torture ban
Reject assertion he has right to waive rules to protect US security
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | January 5, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Three key Republican senators yesterday condemned President Bush's assertion that his powers as commander in chief give him the authority to bypass a new law restricting the use of torture when interrogating detainees.

John W. Warner Jr., a Virginia Republican who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, issued a joint statement rejecting Bush's assertion that he can waive the restrictions on the use of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment against detainees to protect national security.

''We believe the president understands Congress's intent in passing, by very large majorities, legislation governing the treatment of detainees," the senators said. ''The Congress declined when asked by administration officials to include a presidential waiver of the restrictions included in our legislation. Our committee intends through strict oversight to monitor the administration's implementation of the new law."

Separately, the third primary sponsor of the detainee treatment law, Senator Lindsey O. Graham, Republican of South Carolina, told the Globe in a phone interview that he agreed with everything McCain and Warner said ''and would go a little bit further."

''I do not believe that any political figure in the country has the ability to set aside any . . . law of armed conflict that we have adopted or treaties that we have ratified," Graham said. ''If we go down that road, it will cause great problems for our troops in future conflicts because [nothing] is to prevent other nations' leaders from doing the same."

link

0 Replies

But Blotham has surely missed the most important person of all--Senator John McCain--I am sure that Blotham knows that Senator McCain is the chief sponsor of the bill to ban torture which in his words- "shocks the conscience"

In a story released on Dec. 19th Senator John Mc Cain

quote

'suggested that harsh treatment of a terrorism suspect who knows of an imminent attack would not violate international standards. The Arizona Republican said legislation before Congress would establish in US law the international standard banning any treatment of prisoners that "shocks the conscience" including mock executions.

Asked on ABC's "This Week" whether such treatment of a terrorism suspect who could reveal information that could stop a terrorist operation would shock the conscience, MCCAIN SAID IT WOULD NOT."

It is unfortunate that Blotham has not caught up with this important news coming from the chief sponsor of the "Anti-Torture"legislation.

0 Replies

Again, I must reiterate, McTag and the left wing Labor Press in England may indeed deplore the election of George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 and the gains made by the Republicans in the House and Senate in 2000, 2002, and 2004

I am glad to see that Britons have opinions about US office holders and US policies. Mc Tag says that US interests are being very badly served. I am happy that he has an opinion but I hasten to inform him that unless he has dual citizenship he cannot participate in the US election.

McTag may indeed have good reasons to make his statement about US interests being very badly served but, I am very much afraid, that the majority of the electorate in the US does not agree with him.

He may, of course, utilize his talents and brain power by opting to come to the United States to work for the Administration's defeat, but failing that, his posts are, I am very much afraid, quite useless.

I am heartened by the comments made by some of the left wing on these posts. I am constrained to remind them that some wag, constantly pilloried in the press by his enemies, commented--Did they spell my name right. I am invigorated by the comments which clearly show that I am getting under the skin of such worthies as "Joe from Chicago" who, as I have been told, is an ambulance chaser.

I am delighted to note my name utilized on these threads. As Oscar Wilde said:

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about."

0 Replies

America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. - Oscar Wilde

0 Replies

Oscar Wilde never ate at McDonalds obviously.

0 Replies

Okie- I must advise you to ignore any one like BBB who attempts to pidgeonhole someone as complex as TR by labeling him as, "A combination of liberal and a conservative" What does that mean?

What kind of a combination? 97% conservative and 3% liberal?

When someone makes such a comment, if it is not sourced appropriately, it is worse than useless.

I, of course, can take R. W. Brands' great autobiography of TR called "The Last Romantic" and point out that TR was quite "warlike", spiling for a fight, and unwilling to let America's adversaries take advantage.

Indeed, TR really knew how to lay it down.

When faced with Wilson's pusillanimous attitude with regard to Germany, TR said---'He( Wilson) is yellow all through in the presence of danger, either physically or morally" AND "Even the lily-livered skunk in the White House may not be able to prevent Germany from kicking us into war"

(Both quotes above from Brands' TR- P. 776.

It seems to me, Okie, that if I were to base TR's personality and philosophy on the above quotes, TR and Donald Rumsfeld would have a great deal in common.

0 Replies

But does Walter Hinteler know that Wilde also said:

"When good American die, they go to Paris."

Not Berlin, or Stuttgart or Hamburg but Paris!!

0 Replies

Some got older than 46, and not everyone got "Cimetiere du Père Lachaise" as final address.

http://img416.imageshack.us/img416/5429/clipboard11rk.th.jpg

0 Replies

Of course, Walter, you are quite correct, he hurried to the centre of pederasty and sodomy in the Western World at the time and died there. It is quite a pity he was not still living in the 1920's. He would have enjoyed Berlin.

0 Replies

Mortkat wrote:

Okie- I must advise you to ignore any one like BBB who attempts to pidgeonhole someone as complex as TR by labeling him as, "A combination of liberal and a conservative" What does that mean?

What kind of a combination? 97% conservative and 3% liberal?

BBB is actually supporting my assertion on the thread about leftists. There, it is the contention by libs that there are no extreme leftists these days. I made the assertion that yesterdays liberals would be considered a right winger today, thus trying to illustrate the point that things are going further left all the time. You would think I was a grasshopper in a chicken pen full of chickens, they jumped on me big time like I was some absolute idiot. Of course, I stand by my belief. Perhaps I stretched it a little when I used Hubert Humphrey as an example of a right winger today, but the basic premise is that he was part of the old guard more conservative Democratic Party. I don't think there is any question about it.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Quote:

BBB is actually supporting my assertion on the thread about leftists. There, it is the contention by libs that there are no extreme leftists these days. I made the assertion that yesterdays liberals would be considered a right winger today, thus trying to illustrate the point that things are going further left all the time. You would think I was a grasshopper in a chicken pen full of chickens, they jumped on me big time like I was some absolute idiot. Of course, I stand by my belief. Perhaps I stretched it a little when I used Hubert Humphrey as an example of a right winger today, but the basic premise is that he was part of the old guard more conservative Democratic Party. I don't think there is any question about it.

People jumped on you for the same reason they would have if you'd advanced the thesis that the spleen pumps blood, not the heart. Where on earth did you get this thesis? How can you be so self-satisfied with your lack of empirical evidence to support it? I don't know how old you are, or what educational institutions you've attended, or how much you've been able to travel away from your home area, but believe me, it is clearly evident to a large bunch of us here that - on this matter - you really do not know what you are talking about.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

People jumped on you for the same reason they would have if you'd advanced the thesis that the spleen pumps blood, not the heart. Where on earth did you get this thesis? How can you be so self-satisfied with your lack of empirical evidence to support it? I don't know how old you are, or what educational institutions you've attended, or how much you've been able to travel away from your home area, but believe me, it is clearly evident to a large bunch of us here that - on this matter - you really do not know what you are talking about.

What is this about me saying the spleen pumps blood? Is this still about Humphrey? Historians have already recorded that he was one of the last of the old guard, more conservative Democratic Party. I won at least partially on that argument, perhaps not entirely. I conceded that Humphrey was a big spender, welfare guy, so somewhat liberal in that regard, while I pointed out that so is Bush in that regard, while you choose to label Bush a right wing extremist, so I don't think your arguments are very well organized.

Now, just because I've attended an educational institution or you have, so what? I've known many farmers that could run rings around you people here in terms of intelligence. For what its worth, I'm part of the baby boomer generation, college graduate, Vietnam vet, grandfather, have worked for a major corporation, successful in business, and conservative, obviously. I've traveled extensively outside Oklahoma. I am law abiding. I pay my taxes and vote on a regular basis. I grew up relatively poor and am by no means rich now. I've watched politics for a long time and my views are held by a great number of people I know.

Sorry to interrupt all you cool aid drinkers here on this forum, but I thought disagreement and various views were welcomed by the intellectuals here.

0 Replies

This is good

http://www.adcritic.com/interactive/view.php?id=5927

loss of privacy

0 Replies

I didn't realize that FDR was a conservative since he was part of the old guard Democratic party of which Humphrey was one of the last. Are you honestly going to tell us that FDR would be a RWer by today's standards? That is downright silly okie.

I will have to remind many on this board of this "fact" that okie claims to be true.

Sorry okie just because one person is more conservative than another doesn't make them conservative by any stretch of the imagination or any logical construct. Mao was more conservative than Krushev. Does that make Mao a conservative? Hardly. Humphrey was more conservative than McGovern but it doesn't make Humphrey a RWer. You have been unable to find even ONE instance that is supported by facts that would make him a RWer. You simply made up a fact then insisted that it was a fact even when you could provide no source for it.

0 Replies

The fact is that the Democrat Party has indeed become more left wing over the past five or six decades, notwithstanding the protestations of Blatham and others. Prior to FDR, the Democrat Party was ruled by a tense coalition of very conservative Southern Congressmen and Senators (who, because of a regional tradition of keeping the same people in office for many years, ruled most of the committees that shaped - or limited legislation), and a coalition of labor and limousine liberals, mostly from the Northeast. The depression brought the latter to the fore with FDR, however, even his New Deal program was conservative by the standards of the ADA (Americans for Democratic Action )which took over the Democrat party in the mid '50 under their standard-bearer Hubert Humphrey. JFK moderated them somewhat, but LBJ later enacted their full program - something well to the left of FDR. Jimmy Carter took it even farther, though he was such an inept leader that it didn't make much difference.

It is true that Clinton pursued a more centrist policy (or perhaps it is more accurate to say rhetoric). I believe that was based on his very realistic assessment of the temper of the people - Carter's replacement by Reagan was a real turning point in American politics.

Today the Democrat Parth is a bit torn between the competing interests of the various single issue groups that are its main activists and supporters. They form a diverse lot - tort lawyers, labor unions, feminists, environmentalists and various believers in conspiracy theories. Hard to tell which way they will go given their need to appeal to an increasingly conservative public mind. If they are wise they will dump Howard Dean and continue the Clinton strategy of creating the appearance of more conservatisn than they really represent,

Overall the very platforms of successive Democrat campaigns have themselves unmistakably demonstrated the leftward drift.

0 Replies

Quote:

They form a diverse lot - tort lawyers, labor unions, feminists, environmentalists and various believers in conspiracy theories.

Plus, regular people, mothers, fathers, workers.

You really make Dems out to be a bunch of Wackos, which is no more true than those who make Republicans out to be a bunch of Nutjobs.

Given the close nature of the last few presidential elections, it is difficult to state conclusively that there exists an 'increasingly conservative public mind.' Much of the 'increasing conservatism' is based upon fear, played up very well by the current administration.

We'll see how increasingly conservative the public is in 2006.

0 Replies

I've already softened my assertion that Humphrey about being a right winger in all aspects. My basic premise is true, that Humphrey would be an example of conservatism in some aspects if he were alive today. And is Bush a right winger when it comes to spending. Hardly. Humphrey, FDR, and Truman are good examples of pro-defense, which could hardly be identified with liberals in today's world. You will likely disagree, but having lived through that era, I can hardly imagine any of those old Democrats being pro abortion, certainly not pro-partial birth abortion, anti-oil drilling such as in ANWR, pro-giving various benefits like drivers licenses and assistence to education and so forth to illegal aliens, pro-voting rights for criminals (as Hillary has proposed), accusing the military of commonly committing atrocities, pro-taking away the ownership of firearms, you should get the picture without naming more.

I don't know exactly how you define a liberal, and you will likely disagree with some or all of the above. I have good reasons to believe what I've said, based on history and the general mood of society at that time. Unless, we could bring those guys back to life, there is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt by asking them about some of these issues.

And thank you georgeob1 for the support in an obviously correct view of history.

0 Replies

George? You are arguing that Humphrey was liberal? That is in direct contradiction to okie's claim that he was conservative. Not even conservative, but RW. Are you telling us that Humphrey wasn't RW? Wow.. What a revelation.

0 Replies

How dangerous is the Bush administration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know