True? You be the judge.

http://enphilistor.users4.50megs.com/code.htm
 

Which is to say, the Flameboard is, and has been for some time now, totally polarized. But this thread, as far as I can tell, is no better or worse than any of the others currently open.
 

I can still harp on it. I mean, when was the last time anyone posted a list of "Dubyaisms" as a topic ... ?
 

With the possible additional exception of "Bible-Thumper," since that's how I refer to those folks.
 

However, it's a pretty stupid and uninformed list if you ask me.
 

I gives me a warm fuzzy feeling on the inside. Or maybe it's the amaretto sour.
 

Of course, this is _supposed_ to be a joke, but this is hitting right in the gonads.

[ August 08, 2001: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]

I disagree with the author on some or all of his translations. A few of the translations reveal his bias, social and/or economically. He asserts that the conservatives are the honest party. For such a god-fearing honest man, President Nixon sure did a funny thing when he resigned all those years ago.
 

So True it is.
 

And of course, if Dubya approved funding for stem-cell research (announcment tonight at 9pm), he'll be labeled a liberal too.
 

Yes, we can do fetal stem cell research on already-being-discarded embryos, (say, from the 'extras' made during attempts at in-vitro fertilization) but no, we cannot create new embryos specifically for that purpose.

It's a choice that totally satisfies no one, but also leaves the largest portion of both groups with some gain. (And besides, that's just Federal money. There's still state and private money that can go for whatever they choose).

And that's leadership.
 

What is worth noting is the fact that he lied to the religious right when he said he'd oppose any and all stem cell experimentation during the campaign. I wonder if he'd made it clear that the stand he made the other day was his position on the matter back then how many votes in Florida from the fundies would have gone to Buchanan instead? Perhaps more than 500?
 

The difference is, when a Republican does it, it's "good leadership", but when a Democrat does it (or John McCain, for that matter), s/he's a "lying scum-sucking God-hating liberal."
 

And First, I find the quote in your new sig somewhat..... insulting.

[ August 11, 2001: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]

Since it's the only defense of continuing to try Socialism (after its failures every place its been tried so far) I ever hear, it sounds just fine to me.
 

I guess the same could be said about unregulatated capitalism.
 

That's funny. We did quite well until the era of big government started during the Great Depression. And the Depression, surprise, surprise, was brought on by government overregulation.

It's a good thing that this guy in question visited Cuba before coming up with such a groundbreaking and well-researched conclusion.

What, you think Cuban socialism works? That it's good for the people of Cuba?
 

quote:

---

That's funny. We did quite well until the era of big government started during the Great Depression. And the Depression, surprise, surprise, was brought on by government overregulation.

---

LOL! LOL!

pardon me...

LOL! LOL! LOL!
 

quote:

---

What, you think Cuban socialism works? That it's good for the people of Cuba?

---

Oh, don't get me wrong, the totalitarian end of things in Cuba isn't my cup of tea (although to be fair to Castro things there are probably no worse than most of the states of the former Soviet Union and the bulk of democracies in the devloping world).

But take, say, Mexico, and cut off all trade with the US, and you'd have an abysmal hole-in-the-wall of a nation with endemic disease, poverty, war yadda yadda. And yet Cuba, which has spent the last forty years in essentially the same situation, has the healthiest, most literate, and least poverty and crime-stricken people in Latin America.

So, yeah, the freedom thing's a bitch, but I'd say that as far as your run-of-the-mill Cuban is concerned, they're quite happy with their socialist economy.
 

quote:

---

That's funny. We did quite well until the era of big government started during the Great Depression. And the Depression, surprise, surprise, was brought on by government overregulation.

---

What's even funnier (well, actually not), is that Omega stands firm against FDR's programs which pulled the country out of the disaster, and put food on family's plates. Never let it be said that Omega is for families before businesses.

Of course, Omega's the same guy who thinks America's Conservatives at the time weren't isolationist, and would've stayed out of World War II for as long as possible (sadly, an isolationist trend showing a re-emergence in the Republican Party).

But then, Omega's never been known for rational thought. You know, like his whole theory of the creation of the universe ("There can be no existance outside of the universe! ... Except for God!") But, hey, at least he stopped spelling "prove" with two o's.
 

Conservatives who make pages like these are bastards. They actually deserve their own disease and pollution filled planet of straight white Christian 'master-race' males.

[ August 13, 2001: Message edited by: Wes1701E ]

quote:

---

First off, this post is from my heart, not my brain:

---

Substitute "ass" for "heart" and you pretty much sum up half of the stuff posted here.
 

[ August 13, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]

Besides, three more punches on my hypocrisy card and I get a free 6 inch sub at Subway.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by me:
Conservatives who make pages like these are bastards. They actually deserve their own disease and pollution filled planet of straight white Christian 'master-race' males.

---

seriously though. thats what this guy's version of heaven sounds like.
 

FDR's programs which pulled the country out of the disaster

Um... no? The Depression KEPT GOING, all the way through the "New Deal", right up until WW2.
 

You're right, the Depression did go on. However, you're apparently ignoring the fact that production and consumption maintained steady growth (although they never did regain pre-Crash levels) after FDR took office.

Roosevelt propped up the economy with a series of programs to give people jobs. All Hoover wanted to do was sit in the White House and let people suffer.

Let's take a look at the WPA, one of Roosevelt's "New Deal" programs ... (Works Progress Administration, later the Works Projects Admin)

The WPA was responsible for 10% of new roads in the US, not to mention hospitals, city halls, courthouses and schools. It built the Lincoln Tunnel in NY, the Triborough Bridge system, the East River Drive (now the FDR Drive), the Fort Knox gold depository, and both the Bonneville and Boulder (now Hoover) dams. And guess what? The men who worked for the WPA had ... jobs! And could feed their families!

All Hoover wanted to do was let the economy "sort itself out." Hoover got himself elected on "general prosperity" in 1928, and he got kicked out of office for fucking the country up the ass.

And you keep ignoring, Omega, the basic fact that Conservatives of the day tended to be isolationists. And isolationists didn't want to enter World War II, and probably wouldn't have to the extent that visonaries like FDR (who realized that a Nazi Germany was a threat to freedom) wanted to.

Essentially: you've got a blind hatred for liberals which makes you out to be a rather ignorant fool. And it makes you quite the laughing stock on Flare. It'd be nice if you could actually try and look at things impartially without replacing "Democrat" with "athiest god-hating scum-sucking communist liberal fucker."

Have a nice day. And, er, try and read a history book at some point in your life instead of blindly accepting the indoctrination you're recieving.

Or get a life.
 

As cruel as this sounds, it would have allowed people to sort things out for themselves. FDR's actions, while beneficial in the short-term, place excessive burden on the government to keep afloat what should be a self-sustaining economy.
 

Other than that, he followed the same sit on your hands line set by Harding and Coolidge.

And who, I say who, ever said that the downfall of unregulated capitalism began with the Great Depression??

[ August 13, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]

1929

• Herbert Hoover becomes President. Hoover is a staunch individualist but not as committed to laissez-faire ideology as Coolidge.
• More than half of all Americans are living below a minimum subsistence level.
• Annual per-capita income is $750; for farm people, it is only $273.
• Backlog of business inventories grows three times larger than the year before. Public consumption markedly down.
• Freight carloads and manufacturing fall.
• Automobile sales decline by a third in the nine months before the crash.
• Construction down $2 billion since 1926.
• Recession begins in August, two months before the stock market crash. During this two month period, production will decline at an annual rate of 20 percent, wholesale prices at 7.5 percent, and personal income at 5 percent.
• Stock market crash begins October 24. Investors call October 29 "Black Tuesday." Losses for the month will total $16 billion, an astronomical sum in those days.
• Congress passes Agricultural Marketing Act to support farmers until they can get back on their feet.
  

• By February, the Federal Reserve has cut the prime interest rate from 6 to 4 percent. Expands the money supply with a major purchase of U.S.
  securities. However, for the next year and a half, the Fed will add very little money to the shrinking economy. (At no time will it actually pull money out of the system.) Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon announces that the Fed will stand by as the market works itself out: "Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate real estate… values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wreck from less-competent people."
• The Smoot-Hawley Tariff passes on June 17. With imports forming only 6 percent of the GNP, the 40 percent tariffs work out to an effective tax of only 2.4 percent per citizen. Even this is compensated for by the fact that American businesses are no longer investing in Europe, but keeping their money stateside. The consensus of modern economists is that the tariff made only a minor contribution to the Great Depression in the U.S., but a major one in Europe. (More)
• The first bank panic occurs later this year; a public run on banks results in a wave of bankruptcies. Bank failures and deposit losses are responsible for the contracting money supply.
• Supreme Court rules that the monopoly U.S. Steel does not violate anti-trust laws as long as competition exists, no matter how negligible.
• Democrats gain in Congressional elections, but still do not have a majority.
• The GNP falls 9.4 percent from the year before. The unemployment rate climbs from 3.2 to 8.7 percent.
  

• No major legislation is passed addressing the Depression.
• A second banking panic occurs in the spring.
• The GNP falls another 8.5 percent; unemployment rises to 15.9 percent.
  

• This and the next year are the worst years of the Great Depression. For 1932, GNP falls a record 13.4 percent; unemployment rises to 23.6 percent.
• Industrial stocks have lost 80 percent of their value since 1930.
• 10,000 banks have failed since 1929, or 40 percent of the 1929 total.
• About $2 billion in deposits have been lost since 1929.
• Money supply has contracted 31 percent since 1929.
• GNP has also fallen 31 percent since 1929.
• Over 13 million Americans have lost their jobs since 1929.
• Capital growth investments have dropped from $16.2 billion to 1/3 of one billion since 1929.
• Farm prices have fallen 53 percent since 1929.
• International trade has fallen by two-thirds since 1929.
• The Fed makes its first major expansion of the money supply since February 1930.
• Congress creates the Reconstruction Finance Corporation.
• Congress passes the Federal Home Loan Bank Act and the Glass-Steagall Act of 1932. (More)
• Top tax rate is raised from 25 to 63 percent.
• Popular opinion considers Hoover's measures too little too late. Franklin Roosevelt easily defeats Hoover in the fall election. Democrats win control of Congress.
• At his Democratic presidential nomination, Roosevelt says: "I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the American people."
  

from http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/Timeline.htm#BackSmootHawley

Hoover followed a valid course of action? No, I don't think he did.

Political philosophy lies at the heart of the argument, and political philosophy since the time of the Progressives maintains that the Federal government have some regulatory role over business.

[ August 13, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]

The only good thing to come out of Tennessee was Al Gore. But I think the country music industry also comes out of Tennessee, so I'd be willing to negate Al Gore if it meant no country music. As a bonus, we'd get rid of Omega, too.

Speaking of which, FDR also led the Democratic Party when African-Americans began leaving the Republican Party (which they'd stuck with loyally since Lincoln). And, for all the talk that Republicans do about Democrats "inventing" character assassination, they tend to forget that the GOP invented the stuff:

* Eleanor had given FDR gonorrhea, which she had contracted from an African-American

* she was going to Moscow to learn unspeakable sexual practices

* Roosevelt was descended from Dutch Jews who had changed their names (never accuse the Republican Party of the 1930's of being tolerant ... )

Thankfully, Roosevelt didn't respond in kind. He was only interested in results, and he did in fact get them. He won the election with over 60% of the vote, only failing to carry Vermont and Maine (someone later suggested they be sold to Canada to balance the budget).

[ August 13, 2001: Message edited by: MeGotBeer ]

Or maybe it just has to do with its effect on Tennessee. Or, as it's called: motivated self-interest.

Anyway ... Omega, you do realize, of course, that while social-security and medicare were certainly not conservative positions of the 1930's, they are very much conservative positions of the modern Republican Party? Once again making it clear to everyone, that Omega is not living in the (to quote Capt. Rachel Garrett) "here and now."

Which is clearly where everyone should live.
 

You go with what works. Medicare and Social Security don't work. Therefore, we get rid of them, your trite statements about such things being modern notwithstanding.
 

[ August 14, 2001: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]

quote:

---

No, it's NOT a modern conservative position. It's a modern REPUBLICAN position. You still don't get that I'm not a Republican, do you?

---

If my cat were to tell me he wasn't really a cat, I'd nod, and say "of course you're not", but I'd just be telling him what he'd want to hear.

Despite the delusions my cat might have in the hypothetical scenario above, he's still a cat, and you're still a partisan fundementalist Republican.
 

How some people can say that the US being isolationist is SOOOOOOOOO bad, and at the same time hold that every time the US gets involved in something, it's SOOOOOOOOOO bad, remains beyond my comprehension.

Admit it. You only want us when we're paying YOUR dues, pushing or keeping the folks you don't like (Communists, Fascists, )out of your countries, or cleaning up the messes made by your sloppy country-building (Yugoslavia) or former colonialism (Rwanda, The Middle East, etc, etc.). After that's done, it's "why don't you go back where you came from, you imperialist creeps, and while you're at it, adopt OUR policies!"
 

Nice rant, but, er, you're off topic.

[ August 14, 2001: Message edited by: MeGotBeer ]

Which doesn't make it any less true.