okie,
Maybe you didn't read George's post....
Quote: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.
I love this argument that FDR was conservative. FDR must have been a slavering RWer if Humphrey was RW. It is really quite hilarious. In direct contradiction to the argument that socialism is extreme left.
parados wrote: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.
Who is "establishment" and who a revolutionary in a steadily changing scene, depends on the time scale you have in mind. I believe that okie's basic proposition that in recent decades the Democrat party has moved steadly to the left is largely correct. Clinton, as I noted, took a tactical and largely rhetorical, turn to the center, but that was merely a clever adaptatoion to the temper of the times. Since then the Democrats, though internally a fractious and diverse bunch, have moved even farther left and the selection of Howard Dean as their chairman is indicative of this fact.
My father was a Democrat Congressman, and a self-styled "conservative New Deal Democrat". He was very much opposed to the ADA and Humphrey; he thought Algier Hiss was a spy; and that the organized labor movement was largely corrupt, often criminal, and long past the era in which it was truly needed or beneficial. He saw LBJ as a power-obsessed unprincipaled idiot in 1965 when he died prematurely. Events proved him right.
georgeob1, your posts make alot of sense and line up with my take on history. I will confess that Humprhey was a poor example. He was considered a liberal compared to other candidates at the time. When I say liberal, he loved government spending and programs to solve problems. With that said, I keep pointing out that socially, I don't think any of the older Democrats, including Humphrey are nearly as liberal as the modern Democrat Party. And in this confused world of partisanship and labels, Bush is labeled by some as a right wing extremist, yet he is a big spender, showing similar tendencies as perhaps a Humphrey would have done. And I think Humphrey could not be considered anti-defense or anti-military at all. He would line up more with a George Bush of today, and would in no way resemble a Howard Dean in that regard.
It is obvious to me that the Democrat Party of today has alot of input from organizations like Moveon.org, People for the American Way, ACLU, and radical organizations like that, clearly very leftist in my opinion. Simply watch the Alito hearings, and many of the questions obviously are conjured up by young staff members that are strident liberal leftists.
Simply look at an Al Gore, a man that contends the internal combustion engine is the most serious threat to mankind. I think Humphrey would have laughed at such an outlandish claim. Howard Dean suggests Bush knew about 911 before it happened. Humphrey would have been shocked at this. Kerry accuses the military of routine atrocities as standard operating procedure. Humphrey would be embarrassed by such foolishness. Many prominent Democrats of today were part of the Vietnam protesting, pot smoking crowd of the 60's, of which Humphrey did not take a liking to at all.
I think I've made a pretty good case for my statements whether you agree or not. If you did not live through that era, I suggest you may not be totally up to speed on it either.
I think two-party system is a failure and creating unnecessary polarization.
talk72000 wrote:I think two-party system is a failure and creating unnecessary polarization.
I think the polarization is part of what is the necessary to see which direction the country goes. It is part of our heritage, and is part of democracy in action. The alternative is a dictatorship, where all disagreement is squashed. I wish everybody agreed with my philosophy of government, but darn it, there are other citizens out there. It does seem like, however, that we can and should be all able to agree on following the constitution. When I mention polarization and seeing which way the country goes, I think the debate must stay within constitutional limits. We can disagree on its interpretation to a minor extent, but I hope we should not buy into the belief as held by liberals that it can be a living, breathing document, thus in effect changing it into whatever we want it to be. If that happens, it becomes meaningless. As far as I'm concerned, it is set in concrete, and if you want to change it, propose an amendment (remember, the amendment must not contradict other provisions), or go somewhere else, otherwise you will have a serious fight on your hands. We fought once to establish it and I would hope we won't have to do it again.
It is proportional representation that is closer to my way of thinking.
How dangerous is the Bush administration?
Well, it just bombed Pakistan, a nuclear power.
Could this be a tad destabilising? Yes it could.
okie wrote:georgeob1, your posts make alot of sense and line up with my take on history.
That's not at all surprising, okie. george's posts line up with george's take on history, too.
Ooooooh and whodda thunk, the intelligence was faulty AGAIN, and more innocents, more men, women and children, more non-combatants die.
Quote:
al-Qaida Leader Not at Site of Airstrike
By RIAZ KHAN, Associated Press Writer
DAMADOLA, Pakistan - Al-Qaida's second-in-command was not at the site of a U.S. airstrike on a Pakistan village near the Afghan border that killed at least 17 people, two senior Pakistani officials said Saturday.
"Their information was wrong, and our investigations conclude that they acted on a false information," said a senior intelligence official who has direct knowledge of the investigations launched by Pakistan to look into the attacks.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
okie wrote:georgeob1, your posts make alot of sense and line up with my take on history. I will confess that Humprhey was a poor example. He was considered a liberal compared to other candidates at the time. When I say liberal, he loved government spending and programs to solve problems. With that said, I keep pointing out that socially, I don't think any of the older Democrats, including Humphrey are nearly as liberal as the modern Democrat Party. And in this confused world of partisanship and labels, Bush is labeled by some as a right wing extremist, yet he is a big spender, showing similar tendencies as perhaps a Humphrey would have done. And I think Humphrey could not be considered anti-defense or anti-military at all. He would line up more with a George Bush of today, and would in no way resemble a Howard Dean in that regard.
And your evidence that Howard Dean and the Democratic party are anti defense and anti military is what? Sorry, okie but you just make crap up constantly. There is no evidence that the Democratic party is any more antidefense than the GOP. I can find numerous instances of the GOP cutting benefits for the military. Does that make the GOP liberal? Or the Democrats conservative? In fact a quick look at the military spending under different Presidents gives a very interesting viewpoint. National Defense spending under Carter was 4.7% of GDP at its lowest. National Defense spending under Bush was only 3.9% of GDP in 2004 at its highest. You claimed Carter was a liberal and yet Carter with a Democratic Congress spent more of GDP on defense and the military than Bush with a GOP congress has.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/hist.pdf
Quote:It is obvious to me that the Democrat Party of today has alot of input from organizations like Moveon.org, People for the American Way, ACLU, and radical organizations like that, clearly very leftist in my opinion.
Your arguments make little to no sense okie. I could claim that Jefferson and Washington and every one of the founders were liberal because none of them drove cars. They were obviously major tree huggers. Even farther to the left than Howard Dean. Based on that we can only conclude that the country has moved right, not left. It makes as much sense as your claims that have no basis in reality.
JTT wrote:Ooooooh and whodda thunk, the intelligence was faulty AGAIN, and more innocents, more men, women and children, more non-combatants die.
Good thing it wasn't an aspirin factory or we would have to call for impeachment.
parados wrote: National Defense spending under Carter was 4.7% of GDP at its lowest. National Defense spending under Bush was only 3.9% of GDP in 2004 at its highest.
Nice try, but I think everybody should know that defense spending as a % of GDP is being squeezed over the years, primarily at the expense of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which continues to gobble up available funds, and there is no end in sight. Big reason why Bush proposed reform in this slowly ticking time bomb. I don't think Carter is a good example at all. He happened to fall into a different historical time frame on the long term trend, which all presidents are subject to. They inherit what is given them and try to tweak it one way or the other according to how their emphasis becomes adopted in the budget. To claim that Howard Dean and the Democratic Party is as pro-defense and would be as aggressive as George Bush, believe what you want I guess, but it doesn't make much sense to me. Ask lots of active service people during Clinton's administration if the Democrats cared much about the military? Most of them were elated when Bush was elected. Why do you think the Democrats in Florida tried not to count military ballots in the Gore Bush contest?
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3521&sequence=0
The dems dident want to count the military ballots because they realized they would be most likely republican votes. Likewise the republicans wipped up the felons list and placed a lot of names that dident belong on the list because they realized that they could stop a lot of democrates from voting. People who live in glass houses shouldent throw stones.
okie,
Quote:I don't think Carter is a good example at all. He happened to fall into a different historical time frame on the long term trend, which all presidents are subject to.
First you argue that support of the military is the primary way of defining conservatives vs liberals then when presented with facts about that spending you claim I have to look at the historical context. Can't you at least TRY to stay consistent okie instead of changing the standards to always make your opinions seem to be facts to you?
rabel22 wrote:The dems dident want to count the military ballots because they realized they would be most likely republican votes. Likewise the republicans wipped up the felons list and placed a lot of names that dident belong on the list because they realized that they could stop a lot of democrates from voting. People who live in glass houses shouldent throw stones.
Seems like legal military ballots are worth alot more than illegal votes by felons??? I don't follow the reasoning there.
Parados, I am consistent. Bush is simply more pro-defense than the Democratic Party. Hey, they even wish to impeach him for tapping into Al Qaida phone conversations. How pro-defense is that? I think opposing doing it is pro-stupidity. And just because somebody like Carter spent more in terms of % of GNP 30 years ago or so doesn't tell me anything in terms of today.
okie wrote:rabel22 wrote:The dems dident want to count the military ballots because they realized they would be most likely republican votes. Likewise the republicans wipped up the felons list and placed a lot of names that dident belong on the list because they realized that they could stop a lot of democrates from voting. People who live in glass houses shouldent throw stones.
Seems like legal military ballots are worth alot more than illegal votes by felons??? I don't follow the reasoning there.
Parados, I am consistent. Bush is simply more pro-defense than the Democratic Party. Hey, they even wish to impeach him for tapping into Al Qaida phone conversations. How pro-defense is that? I think opposing doing it is pro-stupidity. And just because somebody like Carter spent more in terms of % of GNP 30 years ago or so doesn't tell me anything in terms of today.
And you have told me NOTHING about the democrats of 40 years ago other than CLAIM they would be RW today. Nothing you have told me tells me anything of how they would be RW in terms of today. That is my point. You demand that others accept your lack of facts as gospel truth but then you brush away my facts with strawman arguments. Who has proposed impeaching Bush for tapping Al Qaeda phone conversations? No one I know of. The only thing that is consistent okie is your inability to back up any of your statements.
I've backed up my arguments with plenty of information. You either haven't read them or don't agree with them, but its not because I haven't argued my case with evidence. Go back and read it. I've repeated some of the arguments more than once, so I'm tired of doing it over and over. Read the previous posts.
As far as impeaching Bush for tapping phone conversations, where have you been the last month or so? Democrats are consumed with an outcry over supposedly illegal tapping of phone lines, and many whisper possible impeachment, but they know there is little or no public opinion, law, or precedence on their side. Its another one of those issues that simply is not going to gain any traction with the public, much to the frustration of strident Democrats.
okie wrote:
As far as impeaching Bush for tapping phone conversations, where have you been the last month or so?
Quote:Parados: Who has proposed impeaching Bush for tapping Al Qaeda phone conversations?
It's obvious you can read, okie; it's comprehension that seems to be your Achilles heel.
In flordia you dont have to be a felon to be placed on the felon list by the republican government that controles flordia. Just one more way to get rid of democratic leaning voters.
What JTT said.
The direct quote from you okie...
Quote:Parados, I am consistent. Bush is simply more pro-defense than the Democratic Party. Hey, they even wish to impeach him for tapping into Al Qaida phone conversations.
You keep claiming to 'back it up' but I can't seem to ever find anything more than your opinion in anything you post. Just because you repeat things that you believe to be true but can't provide evidence for is NOT backing it up.
