Kudos to Bush

POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Sunday, March 26, 2006 02:14
VIEWED: 2704
PAGE 4 of 4

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:35 PM

Quote:
Quote:
What's your beef with Andrew Jackson?

Hmm...could be the indian thing, the bank thing, the nullification thing, or the censure thing.

ROFL

Hero,

We have our difference, sure, but this cracked me up. Well said. I mean, waht's wrong with AJ? in short, where do I start?

DREAMTROVE

Friday, March 24, 2006 8:10 PM

Hero,

I actually got my degree in the subject, I'm not just shooting my mouth off. There were a few major conflicts, and the crusades etc, I'm not saying it was 1000 years of peace, but the 20th century was certainly a high point of war, and it by no means ended with WWII. This is just a totally naive picture you painted. Also proportional to what? I mean a population of 1 million people is a population of one million people, sometimes it's in a city, other times it's over a continent. There were cities of a million then too. You really lack a basis for comparison, since all conflicts are a subset. But overall, deaths are up, way up, because of the increase in killing technology.

Quote:
And yes, a million people have dies in a matter of some 15 years in a particular nation. But such a statistic cannot be compared with the casualty figures, both civilian and military of even the lesser of the two last great wars.

Do you even read my posts? Or anyhthing at all? No one did mention the nation with the holocasut was the Congo, with six million deaths over the last 15 years. Several countries lost over a million, including Iraq, and including a few in europe, You still seem to have not acknowledged that a major multinational war took place in Europe quite recently with millions of casualties, and another in indonesia, several in africa, the list goes on. I wouldn't care to say right off the bat that more people died in the 2nd half of the 20th century than the first in wars, but it's not guaranteed to be false either. One would actually have to do a tally. The truth is that in other points in recorded history, wars have sometimes had much ower casualty levels than they do these days, even percentagewise of the global population.

HERO

Friday, March 24, 2006 10:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
deaths are up, way up, because of the increase in killing technology.

I diagree. Precision weapons, medical care, even logistical support services have caused the deaths to dramtically plummet.

Nowadays if you bomb a city the city is still there when its over (minus a building here and there). Hundreds might die to accomplish what tens of thousands died for in previous wars.

H

VETERAN

Saturday, March 25, 2006 12:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:
Quote:
What's your beef with Andrew Jackson?

Hmm...could be the indian thing, the bank thing, the nullification thing, or the censure thing.

ROFL

Hero,

We have our difference, sure, but this cracked me up. Well said. I mean, waht's wrong with AJ? in short, where do I start?

I can't help feeling a little like Kaylee in Shindig....
"I didn't know." But then again, not so much.

What I do know was the Old Hickory was regarded as a hero of the common man, he is credited with creating the "Modern Presidency", and I thought the censure thing was revoked. Inspite of being sickly he foiled his own attempted assaination by beating the assain with his cane (ok the guy misfired twice but still) I suppose it's politically incorrect to side with him on Indian affairs but I beleive some historians argue that he was doing what he thought was best for both parties. Did I mention he founded the Democratic Party and was the only President to preside over the United States with no national debt?

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, March 25, 2006 4:33 AM

Quote:
I diagree. Precision weapons, medical care, even logistical support services have caused the deaths to dramtically plummet.

That's like disagreeing that the Earth is round. you can choose not to accept the facts, but the facts are still the facts. It's not an opinion, the deaths are a solid reality which can be counted.

I agree, medical case has improved, but this is totally dwarfed by the increase in killing power. The post roman viking soldier had a steal sword if he was lucky. Today he has an f16 with carpetbombing capability.

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, March 25, 2006 4:39 AM

Quote:
Did I mention he founded the Democratic Party
Quote:

I thought of mentioning it in his sins, but thought it wouldn't be fair

I do think that is a big problem with the party though. I realize some people are democrats, and I sympathize. Actually, there are a lot of decent democrats around, but overall, the party has a long vicious streak. I still think in its present form, or past one, it's still not a viable option even when the state of the republican party is as woefully sad as it is.

Anyway, I guess everyone needs their fans, even Andrew Jackson.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

VETERAN

Saturday, March 25, 2006 11:37 PM

Dreamtrove,

Yeah, I thought you would think establishing the Democratic Party was of his sins. But there must be some others in the 'verse who think highly of AJ, otherwise he wouldn't appear on the $20 bill.

On a different tack, did you ever get the notion that at some time between the start of Reconstruction and the end of the Depression that Jacksonian Democrats became the Republican Party and Lincoln Republicans became the Democratic Party?

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, March 26, 2006 2:14 AM

Quote:

Dreamtrove,

Yeah, I thought you would think establishing the Democratic Party was of his sins. But there must be some others in the 'verse who think highly of AJ, otherwise he wouldn't appear on the $20 bill.

On a different tack, did you ever get the notion that at some time between the start of Reconstruction and the end of the Depression that Jacksonian Democrats became the Republican Party and Lincoln Republicans became the Democratic Party?

Not at all.

I think this is an elaborate liberal myth to give the american left a better heritage than it actually has.

If you look at the position stances on issues and basic philosophical concepts of government, economy, education, foreign policy, military defense, retirement and healthcare, and civil liberty protections, there has been very little change in the republican party platform from John Quincy Adams and George H. W. Bush.

Makign my claim that the GOP also dates from 1824, I would note that the people who founded the National Reuplican Party in 1824 were the same people who joined the Whigs in the 1940s, and the same people who, when the whigs dissolved, the same people who had been the national republicans created the Republican Party in 1856.

But there was never a 'switch.' Different liberals like to put this switch at different times, but the fact is, some voter groups may have changed parties, but most of them did not, and the parties themselves basically stayed put.

The truth is the same adams-jeffersonian philosophical view and political ideas were in Bush's 2000 platform, and even in his state of the union '06 address. What separates Bush from other republicans is not this, it's that when he says it, he's lying his ass off.

There is one other exception. Herbert Hoover was a marked departure from traditional republicanism, and modeled his platform after european socialism. On an interesting side note, people think 'hoover bankrupted us' and 'fdr pulled us out' but really, FDRism was just Hooverism continued. The initial shock over hooverism caused the disaster, but over time the country adjusted.

Hoover raised the tax rate from 10% to 30% while the majority of american businesses were operating, as they still do, at an under 20% profit margin. The effect was many of them went bankrupt, that's not hard to see. Hoover was still very very wrong and it was a terrible idea. Anyway, Eisenhower reverted much more to traditional republicanism, and Goldwater ever suggested dropping the tax rate back to 10%. That was one of the few moments like the non-passage of the balanced budget act in '97 when the country opted not to save itself and instead plunged into disaster.

I think part of the problem with american liberalism is that it is based on a large amount of distortion and spin. It's a liberal fantasy to see the right as either racist or sexist, and to credit itself with suffragettes and abolitionists, even though both groups were republicans. The problem with this sort of historical rewrite is it fails to address the underlying problems in the american left, and so it continues to think that its bank of solutions work, and so it comes up with things like John Kerry.

When they're not playing the switch game, they like to distill out certain things and labels them as the 'evils of govt' rather than blame their own leaders. Rather than blaming flawed Vietnam and Korea policies on their own party leaders, they opt for some ominous 'evil govt' as if it were some entity disconnected from themselves. 'Evil govt' becomes a catch-all scapegoat which can take the blame for intentionally dropping two nuclear bombs on Japan, rather than taking it own on democratic president Harry S. Truman.

By contrast, conservatives seem much more ready to attack their own. Witness that, though Clinton both killed more people and destroyed more environment than Bush, he didn't draw the same level of hostility from within his own party. The moderate GOP is ready to skin Bush alive.

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4