Second Worst President in US History.

[MSimon]

The two party system forces the governing coalition to assemble before the election. I like that. You know what you are voting for. I also like that the small parties can have a voice and can turn the larger parties over time.

The communist have done quite well in such a system. I believe the libertarians will do even better as they are more in the character of the American people.

Watch November.

I hope you are right...I am becoming steadily more libertarian the older I get.

Perhaps you will eventually get so old and wise that you will become a conservative. :)

What you call conservative is actually Right Wing Progressive. If you go back to the inception of the various Prohibitions the Conservatives were aghast. They felt the Federal Government did not have that power. At least they were mollified with a Constitutional change for Alcohol.

My friend Eric had some thoughts:

http://classicalvalues.com/2011/11/10th ... nostalgia/

and my ruminations on the subject:

http://classicalvalues.com/2012/07/progressives/

So back around 1900 or so Conservatives were what we call today libertarians. And what Conservatives are today were then (post Teddy Roosevelt) a wing of the Progressive movement.

Sorry 'bout that D but you don't even know your own history. I look to the day when you give up being a Progressive and become a Conservative.

[williatw]

FDR did not end the depression. He prolonged it.He also stole Gold from American Citizens.
He also let thousands of Americans be killed just so he would have an excuse to get involved in World War II. He is responsible for initiating Social Security which was never a viable idea. He also did great destruction to our Federal Court system by packing the Federal courts with socialist loons. A legacy still bearing rotten fruit to this very day.
I could go on and on about the failings of FDR, but I think you have plenty enough links to read already, if you bother to do so.
Objectively, FDR was a disaster.

Let me see now if the latest in a long line of conspiracy books is right, he "knew" the japs were going to attack and at pearl harbor? Sounds like the people who think bush knew about 9-11 and let it happen(or even did it). Okay if the base had been better prepared if forewarned, the jap attack would presumably have not have gone as well. But any attack by the japs on us successful or not, would have brought us into the war, he didn't have to not warn the base. Doubt if the number of ships sank being less or fewer people being killed would have mattered to the American public. Hard to believe FDR would risk exposure by taking an unnecessary risk like that. More likely they had intel that was unclear/incomplete. I remember hearing a story from years ago that they knew an attack was coming but didn't know where, thought it would be somewhere else. Yeah have heard the argument that some of the things he did didn't work and may have made it worse, but ultimately he got us out of the great depression on his watch. And his massive spending and leadership lead this country to its greatest military victory in our nations history against the existentialist threats of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy & Imperial Japan in WWII. The American people and the world owe him for that. FDR started SS but it was a considerably more modest program under him, it was originally intended to be only a supplement to retirement income. Sorry but you don't get to blame him for what was allowed to happen decades after he died, when other prez's and congress's did nothing to curb it. As for the thing about making it illegal to own gold, that wasn't changed until under Ford 30 or so years after FDR died, many repub before Ford and after FDR could have changed it if they wanted to, again they don't get a pass.

So then I guess that Reagan is a failure since he started the largest(at the time) peacetime deficits to pay for his military spending(&growth of entitlements).

I keep seeing this accusation repeated. Reagan built up the military to defeat the Soviet Union. Congress Ramped up budget spending to pay off their political contributors and keep pork barreling themselves back in office. They dealt dishonestly with Reagan at every turn. One of my good friends is always telling me about how Tip O'Neal (Super @sshole from Massachusetts) Hammered his gavel down and declared that Congress had met the provisions of Grahm-Rudman. Tip O'Neal was a lying Democrat Sack of Sh*t then, and would still be one if he were still alive. His legacy of idiocy lives on in his assistant Chris Mathews.



The point is, Reagans tax breaks resulted in an INCREASE of government revenue, more than enough to pay for his military buildup. However, that pile of Scum (The Democrat Congress) simply could not refrain from spending money on stupid crap, all the while blaming Reagan for the Deficit.

The Fault for the Deficit lies with the Democrat Congress. It always has. They are simple minded Party Freaks with the mindset of the Grasshopper in that children's story, and they have no comprehension of cutting costs or saving money. They are like teenagers with their daddy's credit card.

To sum it up, for Reagan's Defense expenditures and policies, we won the cold war and got rid of the Soviet Union. For the Democrat Congress' excessive lack of discipline during the same era, we got lots of federal dollars spent on useless and counter productive crap.

Since it was in their best interest to blame Reagan instead of themselves, that is the popular narrative around Democrat Circles. It is not the truth. It is a lie.

Sorry Diogenes no sale I blame Reagan and the Dems equally. If ones a piece of excrement then they both are..Reagan signed off on those budgets, you don't get to be prez and not take responsibility. Just like you don't get to be prez sell arms by the billion to our enemy khomeini's Iran, and say well Reagan gets a pass for that because carter should have double downed on the soon to be dead Shah(talk about betting on a dead horse). That would be like giving Obama a pass for not stopping the Iranians from getting the bomb (though I understand he and the Israelis are sabataging/assasinating left and right) because bush didn't do much. Sorry no sale

Which led to Bush senior even larger ones (& of course Bush junior's larger still) and onewards to Obama's insanely large ones.

George H.W. Bush was the worst mistake Reagan ever made. I cannot express myself sufficiently at the degree of disgust I feel towards that man. The ONLY thing he did right was nominating and defending Clarence Thomas. George H.W. Bush was just another one of those North-Eastern Rockefeller Republicans (Elite Country Club out of touch) who had transplanted to Texas, thereby fooling people into thinking he was a sensible person.

But you are right. George H.W. Bush (using Deficits under Reagan as justification) ramped up Federal Spending, and set the standard for subsequent administrations to go even more insane. Clinton would have done so as well, but his support for Gun Control Legislation cost his party control of congress.,( I know, I helped knock out one of them personally.) and while being forced to deal with a newly elected Republican Congress ( Before they had a chance to get corrupted by living in Washington) they forced him to cut spending.

It's funny that Clinton is given credit for his spending restraints when he had to be dragged kicking and screaming into them. The Media, of course, made it appear that those evil and draconian Republicans were just wanting old people and children to die from starvation or some such.

So then by the same argument Reagan must be a failure too since the monster deficit spending of today are clearly his legacy...sure there are a few posters here who whould vehemently disagree with that.

Like I said, we got something useful and tangible for Reagan's spending. What did we get for the Democrat Congress' spending of that era?

What did we get Diogenes? Those Entitlements so beloved by a large portion of the white elderly american public. The bulk of our spending, deficit & debt. Doubt if most of your elderly white tea-party members would want SS or Medicare touched, they have made that abundantly clear. My understanding is they want the government to "not touch their medicare."

[djolds1]

What you call conservative is actually Right Wing Progressive. If you go back to the inception of the various Prohibitions the Conservatives were aghast. They felt the Federal Government did not have that power. At least they were mollified with a Constitutional change for Alcohol.

My friend Eric had some thoughts:

http://classicalvalues.com/2011/11/10th ... nostalgia/

and my ruminations on the subject:

http://classicalvalues.com/2012/07/progressives/

So back around 1900 or so Conservatives were what we call today libertarians. And what Conservatives are today were then (post Teddy Roosevelt) a wing of the Progressive movement.

Sorry 'bout that D but you don't even know your own history. I look to the day when you give up being a Progressive and become a Conservative.

Yesterday's revolution is today's ancient verity that must never be changed or challenged.

What's amusing is the realization I've had in the last few years - "Progressives" are the true conservatives of today. The achievements of the New Deal and Great Society must never change, even if that is necessary for them to survive. Meanwhile, American "conservatives" want to put stare decisis through a chipper-shredder and almost start over with a Year Zero.

Which again is the reactionary, and which the radical?

What did we get Diogenes? Those Entitlements so beloved by a large portion of the white elderly american public. The bulk of our spending, deficit & debt. Doubt if most of your elderly white tea-party members would want SS or Medicare touched, they have made that abundantly clear. My understanding is they want the government to "not touch their medicare."

Which is true.

New Deal era programs were useful in that the promoted social cohesion. The Great Society by contrast was an exercise in social balkanization.

[williatw]

Perhaps you will eventually get so old and wise that you will become a conservative.

Fat chance Diogenes I couldn't afford the necessary surgery on my health insurance. The one where they stick that tube in my ear suck out half my brain and replace it with bovine excrement.

[MSimon]

Re: FDR and WW2.

I have done extensive research on that and it is true he had a warning. But it was not specific - read Gordon W. Prange "The Verdict of History" on the subject. The book was written when the Ultra/Magic stuff was public knowledge. It is extensively discussed.

The high command in the US thought the Philippines was the target. No one imagined that the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor. Every one thought it would be a suicide mission and the Japanese were too smart for that. Fortunately for us our carriers (the actual target of the attack) were at sea.

The crime was MacArthur. He had 12 hours warning after the Pearl attack and instead of attacking the Japanese bases in Formosa he got caught with his aircraft on the ground. But Mac was a hero and FDR a goat.

And BTW the Officers Commanding Pearl were idiots. In war games in the late 30s a defense against an attack from the North was actually practiced. Instead of preparing for an attack they prepared for sabotage. The high command was reamed for not making their warning "War Warning" more explicit. Why did they prepare for sabotage when they were warned of war? Because attacking Pearl would be suicide. Bad mindset.

By Midway the efficiency of the Navy was way up. And the Navy was both prepared and lucky. Guadalcanal was the real test. Only the Japanese figured that out too late. At first they considered it a sideshow. They thought the action was elsewhere.

I knew a Marine who fought at the 'canal. He never talked about the fighting but his hands were crusted with some white stuff (some kind of jungle rot) he picked up there. Mel Tepper. I shook his hand often. Even at 13 (and earlier and later) I knew it was an honor.

[choff]

Didn't Billy Mitchell layout exactly how the Pearl Harbour attack would go down 6 years previous.

Speaking of fun conspiracy theories, has anyone else heard about the olympics security company that ordered 200,000 coffin liners, each one able to hold either 4 adult bodies or 3 adults and 2 children. Same outfit has an evacution plan for all of London.

[MSimon]

djolds1,

Yesterday's revolution is today's ancient verity that must never be changed or challenged.

Ain't it the truth.

Re: Bush
Have a look at the picture at the bottom of this link:
http://www.ctrl.org/boodleboys/boddlesboys2.html

and then read the whole thing including part 1.

http://www.ctrl.org/boodleboys/boodleboys1.html

I guess when the China profits died they decided to make the US into China.

Catherine Austin Fitts has done extensive work on how that was done.

http://classicalvalues.com/2011/11/why- ... ohibition/

and

http://classicalvalues.com/2012/03/corr ... overnment/

and this which I wrote but is misattributed to "Dave"

http://classicalvalues.com/2009/01/at_the_movies/

We let the Copperheads/NE Republicans take over and now we have government as a straight up criminal organization aided and abetted by "Conservatives" like D. And ""Americans" love that sh!t.

When this phase is over I'm selling out to the victors. Because the Americans I know are the ones Sam Adams described (not all but the vast majority).

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom—go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!" Samuel Adams

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... ution.html

[MSimon]

http://www.virtuescience.com/322.html

[williatw]

The point is, none of us here really know what we have. What we do know is that Reagan shocked Gorbachev when they were together. Many say that yes, he divulged we had back-engineered some alien tech, but I don't know of any evidence of that. All we know is that there must be a lot we don't know. Thumbing your nose at SDI is pretty silly given what we do know about it.

So was the Aurora ever built?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(aircraft)

What about the black triangle TR-3A Black Manta?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TR-3_Black_Manta

You can tell us were all friends here.

Coolest thing reagan tried to do was probably the NASP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_X-30

[choff]

Mao was a Yale man.

http://www.mygen.com/users/ufo/Mao_was_a_Yale_Man.html

[GIThruster]

So was the Aurora ever built?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(aircraft)

What about the black triangle TR-3A Black Manta?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TR-3_Black_Manta

I'm not aware of any firm evidence for either, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The "donuts on a rope" that supposedly come from a methane pulsed detonation engine have been observed several times, so something like Aurora is quite possible. I personally find it hard to believe we would retire the Blackbird based on only sat ops. That's the story but I find it incredible.

I likewise think we would not have retired the F-117's unless we had something better. My guess is a UCAV with better performance. The F-117's weren't especially capable except for their stealth--first gen and all that.

I have never seen anything to justify all the nonsense about the TR-3. Yes, lots of people have sighted black triangles. No, those sightings don't justify the nonsense found all over the web by people claiming to know how the TR-3 was constructed.

Basically, "black programs" are called that because we don't know what they're all about.

[MSimon]

Mao was a Yale man.

http://www.mygen.com/users/ufo/Mao_was_a_Yale_Man.html

Yale has been all politics (once you pass the entrance exams) for a very long time. He should have gone to Chicago and learned something. Too much sex and alcohol and you are out of there (me). Diligence and brains and application and you can graduate with honors (my #2 son).

[MSimon]

D says,

Abraham Lincoln established the power of Federal Supremacy. He did a lot of blatantly illegal things, and he set the stage for subsequent views on what is regarded as legitimate Federal involvement.

I answer the Lincoln Question here:

http://classicalvalues.com/2012/07/a-me ... n-keep-it/

Let me just post here the punch lines:

Slavery had a similar effect on our political system.

Evidently no elite gives way willingly for the betterment of the human condition. So be it.

====

The South killed (or at least greatly weakened) the Federal system by being unwilling to give up slavery.

And you, D, weaken it as well by your attachment to Federal Drug Prohibition. So what do you want most? To punish dopers or to begin the restoration of Federalism?

They are incommensurate. Raich would have overturned Wickard. Our "Conservatives" were ecstatic to hear that the government was going to give the dopers another pounding at the expense of their own supposed cause (limiting Federal power and rolling back the New Deal jurisprudence).

Read the Thomas dissent if you want to read what a conservative thought about the matter. Here is the beginning:

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

I

Respondents’ local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not “Commerce … among the several States.” U.S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3. By holding that Congress may regulate activity that is neither interstate nor commerce under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution’s limits on federal power. The majority supports this conclusion by invoking, without explanation, the Necessary and Proper Clause. Regulating respondents’ conduct, however, is not “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” Congress’ restrictions on the interstate drug trade. Art. I, §8, cl. 18. Thus, neither the Commerce Clause nor the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the power to regulate respondents’ conduct.

Or this piece:

http://spectator.org/archives/2005/06/0 ... a-v-thomas


Too funny. If it weren't so tragic.

[williatw]

Reagan was the Greatest president since George Washington, and every Democrat President of the 20th Century (and the 21st Century) has been a horrible and massive failure.
They also enslave plenty on purpose. Look at Johnson's "War on Poverty". It made dependent chumps out of everyone it was intended to help.

The only part of this screed I could agree with...Reagan the greatest prez since Washington?! You gotta be f'ing kidding me?! FDR a horrible and massive failure?! My god but letting that go, I agree the war on poverty is/was a failure. I am adamantly opposed to giving able bodied people of working age money to do nothing, even if it isn't their fault they can't find work. As I have said here many times make them work for their benefit be it welfare/food stamps/gov paid housing. Pay them at least minimum wage, but expect work in exchange. Doesn’t show up for work doesn’t get paid period, argue with your empty growling stomach. The problem is that I think the current system is only somewhat because of LBJ incompetence/malignant intent. If you forced them to work what would they do? Expect a large percentage in public works type jobs, the ones where we have billions some say couple trillion bucks worth of infrastructure repair. Sounds like a match made in heaven except for the caveat: Public service workers(and their unions). They would fight tooth and nail to preserve their current overpaid/over benefited jobs and they vote in sufficient numbers to make sure nothing really changes. Think the current systems we have is more the result of that than some insidious plot by libs to enslave people to the gov, frankly don't think most of them are that clever to have thought of that. Of course since we are rapidly running out of money we may yet end up with something like I suggest. When public service unions go on strikes when their wages/benefit/retirement promises start drying up, welfare/food stamp recipients would make great strike breakers, higher them for allot less money. When "the long knives come out" people who are perceived as useful and productive will be fed first people less useful, not so much.

That's funny. I agree with everything you said except your carping about Reagan. (and your defense of FDR who GAVE us this massive and unsustainable debt.) As for what you would have welfare recipients do? If they can do nothing else, they can show up in a classroom!

I believe that those who have no useful skill or trade should be going to classrooms to learn more. The point is to not let them just sit around and vegetate leaving the taxpayers to support them.

There is also the "B" reason I believe my idea isn't done. If you required them to work gov would be tasked with finding something for them to do. How would gov respond to that? By arm-twisting private companies to hire as many of them any way they could. Got a gov contract or certain percentage of your business with fed, state, or local gov? Then meet your new ex-welfare employee. It would be like affirmative action on steroids...and we know how much largely white male republican business owners loved affirmative action. So you have the public service unions(largely dem, accept for maybe police & fire), and the small, medium or large business owners(largely republican). Enough votes there on both sides to explain why nothing changed much regardless of which party was in charge. That’s why unlike you I blame dem and rep(or cons or libs) equally for causing & maintaining this mess. I mean on a different subject the bad housing loans...to here republicans tell it, it's all on Barney Frank's shoulders. Like your to obtuse to realize the committee chairmanships in the house(or senate) usually automatically revert to the party in charge. When the repub's took over under Clinton, Frank should have been removed almost automatically. They were in charge for 12yrs, 6 under a repub president, the Repub bare as much or more blame for leaving Frank head of the committee, you only get to say it’s not your fault when you’re not in charge.

[Diogenes]

I hope you are right...I am becoming steadily more libertarian the older I get.

Perhaps you will eventually get so old and wise that you will become a conservative.

What you call conservative is actually Right Wing Progressive.

You keep saying that because that is what you want to believe. You reject the notion that their should be any limitations on individual choices, and you equate this in your own mind to "progressivism."

There is an optimal position in the relationship between government and men, and that is the conservative position. The Liberal position is representative of governmental excess, while the Libertarian position is representative of individual excess. Neither are conducive to good government or a stable society. Each will eventually lead to the other.

If you go back to the inception of the various Prohibitions the Conservatives were aghast. They felt the Federal Government did not have that power. At least they were mollified with a Constitutional change for Alcohol.

My friend Eric had some thoughts:

http://classicalvalues.com/2011/11/10th ... nostalgia/

I seldom bother to read anything Eric writes. He won't defend his position when I have him dead to right, so why bother with him?

and my ruminations on the subject:

http://classicalvalues.com/2012/07/progressives/

So back around 1900 or so Conservatives were what we call today libertarians. And what Conservatives are today were then (post Teddy Roosevelt) a wing of the Progressive movement.

By the social standards of that era, the people were all Right winged Religious nut jobs. When comparing two eras, it's easy to get the zeitgeist wrong between them. You are simply cherry picking the characteristics you wish to highlight in an attempt to impart credibility to your argument.

You also ignore the fact that the effort to eradicate Slavery was launched by these very same people whom you deride as progressives. Was the Anti-Slavery effort a good accomplishment of "progressive" work, or a bad accomplishment? How about the votes for women? Are you against this "progressive" accomplishment?

Sorry 'bout that D but you don't even know your own history. I look to the day when you give up being a Progressive and become a Conservative.

I know my history well enough that I was able to repeatedly correct my College History professor . He took it graciously, and I was rather surprised he was such a good sport about it. I just wasn't going to let him get away with putting out that Liberal Bullsh*t without a rebuttal.
(Just the way I do with you. )


Burke and Smith go together. I hope someday you will become aware of this. The barrier between fiscal and social is just an Illusion.