Metro Jacksonville

http://www.youtube.com/v/ls3ktg6oQBo&hl=en

Washington Post editorials debate if Bush is worst president ever

QuoteRon Brynaert
Published: Sunday December 3, 2006

Five editorials in Sunday's edition of The Washington Post argue whether or not George W. Bush is the worst president ever.

As Editor & Publisher notes, "The Washington Post editorial page has been a strong backer of the Iraq war from the beginning," and the five editorials "may set off an intriguing debate, pro and con."

In one editorial, Michael Lind, a Whitehead senior fellow at the New America Foundation, argues that it's "unfair" to call Bush the worst, since the policies of presidents James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and James Madison "were even more disastrous."

"By contrast, George W. Bush has inadvertently destroyed only Baghdad, not Washington, and the costs of the Iraq war in blood and treasure are far less than those of Korea and Vietnam," Lind writes.

Rutgers University professor David Greenberg agrees that Bush ranks ahead of Nixon, but adds that "it's conceivable that the consequences of the invasion of Iraq may prove more destructive than those of Nixon's stubborn continuation of the Vietnam War."

"Should those things happen, Bush will be able to lay a claim to the mantle of U.S. history's worst president," Greenberg writes. "For now, though, I'm sticking with Dick."

On the other hand, University of Massachusetts professor Vincent J. Cannato, believes that it's too early to tell, and slams the "left-leaning historical profession" for rushing to judgement.

"Much of Bush's legacy will rest on the future trajectory of the fight against terrorism, the nation's continued security and the evolving direction of the Middle East," Cannato writes. "Things may look grim today, but that doesn't ensure a grim future."

Cannato admits that he "worked briefly as a speechwriter in 2001" for the Bush Administration.

The last two contributors both rank Bush at the bottom.

Columbia University professor Eric Foner notes that although it's "impossible to say with certainty how Bush will be ranked in, say, 2050...somehow, in his first six years in office he has managed to combine the lapses of leadership, misguided policies and abuse of power of his failed predecessors."

"I think there is no alternative but to rank him as the worst president in U.S. history," Foner writes.

But historian and author Douglas Brinkley isn't ready to commit to Bush being the absolute worst, though he believes that he "has joined Hoover as a case study on how not to be president."

"Though Bush may be viewed as a laughingstock, he won't have the zero-integrity factors that have kept Nixon and Harding at the bottom in the presidential sweepstakes," Brinkley writes.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Washington_Post_editorials_debate_if_Bush_1203.html

(http://la.indymedia.org/uploads/2007/01/bush_shoots_lincoln3.jpgmid.jpg)

Well Stephendare, it had to happen sooner or later, an opportunity for me to get labeled as a complete whack job... But as some of you know, (or suspect) my formal education is as a historian, as such I have a very strong, perhaps rabid opinion of who the worst president was. In fact, I have quite a few history professors and entire departments that see it my way too. But it NEVER fails to get me in all sorts of trouble, including being called unamerican-!

Using the Washington paper's criteria here are my thoughts:

QuoteIn one editorial, Michael Lind, a Whitehead senior fellow at the New America Foundation, argues that it's "unfair" to call Bush the worst, since the policies of presidents James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and James Madison "were even more disastrous."

Buchanan signed a peace treaty with the Southern Confederacy, The USA would not re-enforce it's military outposts on Southern Soil, and in turn, the South would allow the free flow of mail, food, medicine and supplies.

As soon as Lincoln was elected, he violated that peace, and outfitted a huge invasion force and Naval flotilla to take the Southern ports by force.

Johnson, was railroaded by a congress bent on revenge, otherwise his "worse" failures were that he continued the policy's of Lincoln which got him in huge trouble. So based on these three items, who was the worst? Without a doubt, LINCOLN!

Quote"By contrast, George W. Bush has inadvertently destroyed only Baghdad, not Washington, and the costs of the Iraq war in blood and treasure are far less than those of Korea and Vietnam," Lind writes.

While Mr. Lincolns war was illegal according to the supreme court, and not unlike Vietnam, it was never declared but was a police action against "certain combinations of persons too strong to defeat through ordinary means." To have gone before congress to declare war would have vindicated the South. As our nation was founded around republics, dominions and sovereign governments, which voted of their own free will to band together or join the union, making the states themselves the principals. The federal government was a creation of said states and thus the agent of those principals. For Lincoln to make war on a group of States was to say the Principals had rebelled against their agent, which is a logical impossibility. Though the United States buries the truth in a smokescreen of confusion, the truth is, the "REBELS" wore blue!  

QuoteRutgers University professor David Greenberg agrees that Bush ranks ahead of Nixon, but adds that "it's conceivable that the consequences of the invasion of Iraq may prove more destructive than those of Nixon's stubborn continuation of the Vietnam War."

Mr. Greenberg should recall that in the end, it WAS Nixon who pulled us out of Vietnam. On the other hand every wise leader in the North and South made some attempt at ending Lincolns madness and calling for an end to the war. Lincoln responded by illegally suspending all rights, declaring martial law, and arresting or executing anyone who stood in his way. He boasted that his generals would "make the South howl," and "a crow flying over the South would have to carry his own lunch". The intention of targeting civilians with rape, starvation and fire was quite clear. In the end, it was the most destructive war in our history.
 

Quote"Should those things happen, Bush will be able to lay a claim to the mantle of U.S. history's worst president," Greenberg writes. "For now, though, I'm sticking with Dick."

Sorry Greenberg, I'll stick with ABE, who by the way, was anything but honest.  

QuoteOn the other hand, University of Massachusetts professor Vincent J. Cannato, believes that it's too early to tell, and slams the "left-leaning historical profession" for rushing to judgment.

Massachusetts accusing us of being "left leaning?" Oh Golly, I'm feeling sick. So if Bush is bad, we are on the left... If Lincoln is bad, we are "right wing extremists fascist Nazi racist pigs?" See where this is going?
"Much of Bush's legacy will rest on the future trajectory of the fight against terrorism, the nation's continued security and the evolving direction of the Middle East," Cannato writes. "Things may look grim today, but that doesn't ensure a grim future."

True, as Lincoln's legacy is "He Saved the Union" and "He freed the slaves"... However a close examination of either subject calls Abe on the carpet. Before the war, the UNION was a union of choice and states rights, after Lincolns war it has been a union of force and Washington DC dictatorial nationalism. Anyone that thinks Lincoln went to war to free slaves is deluded and needs to revisit history 101. Lincoln served as a prewar war attorney, representing plantation owners to force their slaves back on the property when they had traveled into a free state...(he won the case too). As the war started, he made a speech in which he said if he could keep the union together by extending slavery into every state and territory, HE WOLD DO THAT! or, if he could keep it together by ending it in every state and territory, HE WOULD DO THAT! In the end, he was losing the war and the bid for re-election, so the idea to draft the black man into segregated units of the army, mostly as cooks and teamsters was in response to disparate manpower shortages and not some sudden humanitarian impulse. Put bluntly, Lincoln needed cannon fodder that no one cared about, or he was going to have his war taken away from him.  

QuoteCannato admits that he "worked briefly as a speechwriter in 2001" for the Bush Administration.

I never worked for Lincoln... though I might be old enough, my family voted for Jeff-by-God-Davis!
The last two contributors both rank Bush at the bottom.

QuoteColumbia University professor Eric Foner notes that although it's "impossible to say with certainty how Bush will be ranked in, say, 2050...somehow, in his first six years in office he has managed to combine the lapses of leadership, misguided policies and abuse of power of his failed predecessors."

If Lincoln is any example, we will put Bushes picture on the money and make him a saint. God help us if anything happens to him while in office, because we'll elevate him near godhood. Can't you see all the mosque's in the country with their meeting rooms? On the wall is a big photo of Bush in a beaver hat... You remember Bush don't you? The president that went to war to free the Iraqi's and save Islam.

Quote"I think there is no alternative but to rank him as the worst president in U.S. history," Foner writes.

Foner is just wrong, (allowing the zeal of the moment to cloud the historical record), add in the republican spin, the freedom myth, mix well with the Lincoln lies and imagine what they will make of Bush by 2050. Hell, they'll be asking little Sunday school children if "Bush" has come into their hearts. They already ask that down at the local A.M.E. church about Lincoln, and his photo is on every Sunday School wall right next to Jesus!

QuoteBut historian and author Douglas Brinkley isn't ready to commit to Bush being the absolute worst, though he believes that he "has joined Hoover as a case study on how not to be president."
"Though Bush may be viewed as a laughingstock, he won't have the zero-integrity factors that have kept Nixon and Harding at the bottom in the presidential sweepstakes," Brinkley writes.

Depending on how the spin is put to the record, even this bumbling Texan will probably come out near perfect. Lincoln fought to keep folks in slavery = Lincoln fought to free the slaves. Lincoln ignored the plea's of the Southern Government and his own men at Andersonville Prison to send food = Lincoln is remembered as the "Great heart" of America. Lincoln compared African Americans with monkeys = Lincolns photo is in just about every African American home or church in the country.Lincoln flaunted US, and International law nearly causing a world war with the UK, France, Canada and Mexico = Lincoln was our greatest statesman president. Lincoln ordered the extermination of Native Americans and brutal treatment of those (majority) who supported the South, also Hispanic Americans and Mexican nationals were painted as border hopping animals as they too supported the South = Today, Lincolns name is next to "Equality" in our national language (and we still hate Hispanics) Lincoln denied there was a God, and debated as a free-thinker, using prayer as a political tool = Lincoln is known as our great Christian President.  

Don't worry, Bush will come out like a rose!  

Ocklawaha
DEO VINDICE!

Thats an interesting post.  But do you think that with a 24/7 news cycle and indefinite archiving of speeches etc., that history will be revised as you foresee in 2050?

You are probably right, though, maybe the title should be "Worst president in the last 100 years", or Worst president in contemporary times"?

However, I do believe that Bush is worse than Nixon, because Nixon's problems arose from mental problems related to feelings of being persecuted, which led to Watergate, which led to his demise, while Bush is just in it as a puppet and shill for  corporate interests. i.e. just for the money.

The 5 Most Badass Presidents of All-Time...

http://www.cracked.com/article_15895_5-most-badass-presidents-all-time.html

ps - number 5 is the namesake of our most glorious city

Some thoughts:
1) 

QuotePublished: Sunday December 3, 2006

This is not exactly a timely article.  Perhaps some of the contributors would have changed their minds had they seen the remainder of the Bush Presidency and its place in history (which can only be viewed in hindsight).  They probably would not change their views however because
2)  The contributors are left-wing historians.  Eric Foner, in particular, is basically a Marxist.  His father was even allegedly a member of the Communist party.  So, it is no wonder that he dislikes the center-right Bush.
3)  The truth is that the worst Presidents since 1900 have been, beginning with the worst:  (a)  Jimmy Carter, (b)  Lyndon Johnson and (c)  Franklin Roosevelt.

Quote from: stephendare on April 17, 2008, 10:40:32 AM
Ock, I think you are wrong.

1.  Lincoln was not out of character for his times.

Actually, many people disagreed with Lincoln's decision to precipitate a war that resulted in the deaths of 600,000 Americans.

Quote
2.  Bush has done more than crash the American economy, but probably the global economy as well.

What exactly has Bush done to "crash the American economy"?

Quote
3.  Stirring up Moslem extremists didnt turn out so well for Christendom in the middle ages.   Bush has poked a nuclear hornets nest.

So Bush caused Muslim extremists to dislike the US?  So why were they attacking us long before Bush took office going back to the 1970s?  Why did bin Laden bomb the US embassies when Clinton was President (about which of course Clinton did nothing)?

Quote
4.  Lincoln, unlike Bush, was the president of a country whose international importance occupied the same position of modern day australia.  He was not the leader of the free world and as such could not really lead by example.

Just because you are the leader of a less significant nation does not give you the authority to behave in a reckless manner.

Typical RG post.

Blah.....Blah.....Blah.....leftist...Blah.....Blah.....communist....Blah.....Blah.....I'm more educated than you....Blah.....Blah.....Blah.....the Democrats caused everything....Blah.....Blah.....Blah.....

Not a timely article?  Who cares.

Not a truthful article? Then somebody might care.

OK Mr. 527.

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 17, 2008, 11:25:00 AM
1) 

QuotePublished: Sunday December 3, 2006

This is not exactly a timely article.  Perhaps some of the contributors would have changed their minds had they seen the remainder of the Bush Presidency and its place in history (which can only be viewed in hindsight).  They probably would not change their views however because

What has Bush done in the last 16 months that would have changed anyone's opinion about him? He has continued to deny that he has made any mistakes, and has only escalated the war since then.

Quote from: Midway on April 17, 2008, 11:33:16 AM
Typical RG post.

Blah.....Blah.....Blah.....leftist...Blah.....Blah.....communist....Blah.....Blah.....I'm more educated than you....Blah.....Blah.....Blah.....the Democrats caused everything....Blah.....Blah.....Blah.....

Not a timely article?  Who cares.

Not a truthful article? Then somebody might care.

OK Mr. 527.

Uhh, in case you didnt know, Lincoln was the first Republican President.

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 17, 2008, 11:48:44 AM

Quote from: Midway on April 17, 2008, 11:33:16 AM
Typical RG post.

Blah.....Blah.....Blah.....leftist...Blah.....Blah.....communist....Blah.....Blah.....I'm more educated than you....Blah.....Blah.....Blah.....the Democrats caused everything....Blah.....Blah.....Blah.....

Not a timely article?  Who cares.

Not a truthful article? Then somebody might care.

OK Mr. 527.

Uhh, in case you didnt know, Lincoln was the first Republican President.

Thanks for that bit of trivia..

I suppose that these were also:

Quote)  The truth is that the worst Presidents since 1900 have been, beginning with the worst:  (a)  Jimmy Carter, (b)  Lyndon Johnson and (c)  Franklin Roosevelt.

Quote from: Ocklawaha on April 17, 2008, 01:02:35 AM
(http://la.indymedia.org/uploads/2007/01/bush_shoots_lincoln3.jpgmid.jpg)

Well Stephendare, it had to happen sooner or later, an opportunity for me to get labeled as a complete whack job... But as some of you know, (or suspect) my formal education is as a historian, as such I have a very strong, perhaps rabid opinion of who the worst president was. In fact, I have quite a few history professors and entire departments that see it my way too. But it NEVER fails to get me in all sorts of trouble, including being called unamerican-!

Using the Washington paper's criteria here are my thoughts:

QuoteIn one editorial, Michael Lind, a Whitehead senior fellow at the New America Foundation, argues that it's "unfair" to call Bush the worst, since the policies of presidents James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and James Madison "were even more disastrous."

Buchanan signed a peace treaty with the Southern Confederacy, The USA would not re-enforce it's military outposts on Southern Soil, and in turn, the South would allow the free flow of mail, food, medicine and supplies.

As soon as Lincoln was elected, he violated that peace, and outfitted a huge invasion force and Naval flotilla to take the Southern ports by force.

Johnson, was railroaded by a congress bent on revenge, otherwise his "worse" failures were that he continued the policy's of Lincoln which got him in huge trouble. So based on these three items, who was the worst? Without a doubt, LINCOLN!

Quote"By contrast, George W. Bush has inadvertently destroyed only Baghdad, not Washington, and the costs of the Iraq war in blood and treasure are far less than those of Korea and Vietnam," Lind writes.

While Mr. Lincolns war was illegal according to the supreme court, and not unlike Vietnam, it was never declared but was a police action against "certain combinations of persons too strong to defeat through ordinary means." To have gone before congress to declare war would have vindicated the South. As our nation was founded around republics, dominions and sovereign governments, which voted of their own free will to band together or join the union, making the states themselves the principals. The federal government was a creation of said states and thus the agent of those principals. For Lincoln to make war on a group of States was to say the Principals had rebelled against their agent, which is a logical impossibility. Though the United States buries the truth in a smokescreen of confusion, the truth is, the "REBELS" wore blue!  

QuoteRutgers University professor David Greenberg agrees that Bush ranks ahead of Nixon, but adds that "it's conceivable that the consequences of the invasion of Iraq may prove more destructive than those of Nixon's stubborn continuation of the Vietnam War."

Mr. Greenberg should recall that in the end, it WAS Nixon who pulled us out of Vietnam. On the other hand every wise leader in the North and South made some attempt at ending Lincolns madness and calling for an end to the war. Lincoln responded by illegally suspending all rights, declaring martial law, and arresting or executing anyone who stood in his way. He boasted that his generals would "make the South howl," and "a crow flying over the South would have to carry his own lunch". The intention of targeting civilians with rape, starvation and fire was quite clear. In the end, it was the most destructive war in our history.
 

Quote"Should those things happen, Bush will be able to lay a claim to the mantle of U.S. history's worst president," Greenberg writes. "For now, though, I'm sticking with Dick."

Sorry Greenberg, I'll stick with ABE, who by the way, was anything but honest.  

QuoteOn the other hand, University of Massachusetts professor Vincent J. Cannato, believes that it's too early to tell, and slams the "left-leaning historical profession" for rushing to judgment.

Massachusetts accusing us of being "left leaning?" Oh Golly, I'm feeling sick. So if Bush is bad, we are on the left... If Lincoln is bad, we are "right wing extremists fascist Nazi racist pigs?" See where this is going?
"Much of Bush's legacy will rest on the future trajectory of the fight against terrorism, the nation's continued security and the evolving direction of the Middle East," Cannato writes. "Things may look grim today, but that doesn't ensure a grim future."

True, as Lincoln's legacy is "He Saved the Union" and "He freed the slaves"... However a close examination of either subject calls Abe on the carpet. Before the war, the UNION was a union of choice and states rights, after Lincolns war it has been a union of force and Washington DC dictatorial nationalism. Anyone that thinks Lincoln went to war to free slaves is deluded and needs to revisit history 101. Lincoln served as a prewar war attorney, representing plantation owners to force their slaves back on the property when they had traveled into a free state...(he won the case too). As the war started, he made a speech in which he said if he could keep the union together by extending slavery into every state and territory, HE WOLD DO THAT! or, if he could keep it together by ending it in every state and territory, HE WOULD DO THAT! In the end, he was losing the war and the bid for re-election, so the idea to draft the black man into segregated units of the army, mostly as cooks and teamsters was in response to disparate manpower shortages and not some sudden humanitarian impulse. Put bluntly, Lincoln needed cannon fodder that no one cared about, or he was going to have his war taken away from him.  

QuoteCannato admits that he "worked briefly as a speechwriter in 2001" for the Bush Administration.

I never worked for Lincoln... though I might be old enough, my family voted for Jeff-by-God-Davis!
The last two contributors both rank Bush at the bottom.

QuoteColumbia University professor Eric Foner notes that although it's "impossible to say with certainty how Bush will be ranked in, say, 2050...somehow, in his first six years in office he has managed to combine the lapses of leadership, misguided policies and abuse of power of his failed predecessors."

If Lincoln is any example, we will put Bushes picture on the money and make him a saint. God help us if anything happens to him while in office, because we'll elevate him near godhood. Can't you see all the mosque's in the country with their meeting rooms? On the wall is a big photo of Bush in a beaver hat... You remember Bush don't you? The president that went to war to free the Iraqi's and save Islam.

Quote"I think there is no alternative but to rank him as the worst president in U.S. history," Foner writes.

Foner is just wrong, (allowing the zeal of the moment to cloud the historical record), add in the republican spin, the freedom myth, mix well with the Lincoln lies and imagine what they will make of Bush by 2050. Hell, they'll be asking little Sunday school children if "Bush" has come into their hearts. They already ask that down at the local A.M.E. church about Lincoln, and his photo is on every Sunday School wall right next to Jesus!

QuoteBut historian and author Douglas Brinkley isn't ready to commit to Bush being the absolute worst, though he believes that he "has joined Hoover as a case study on how not to be president."
"Though Bush may be viewed as a laughingstock, he won't have the zero-integrity factors that have kept Nixon and Harding at the bottom in the presidential sweepstakes," Brinkley writes.

Depending on how the spin is put to the record, even this bumbling Texan will probably come out near perfect. Lincoln fought to keep folks in slavery = Lincoln fought to free the slaves. Lincoln ignored the plea's of the Southern Government and his own men at Andersonville Prison to send food = Lincoln is remembered as the "Great heart" of America. Lincoln compared African Americans with monkeys = Lincolns photo is in just about every African American home or church in the country.Lincoln flaunted US, and International law nearly causing a world war with the UK, France, Canada and Mexico = Lincoln was our greatest statesman president. Lincoln ordered the extermination of Native Americans and brutal treatment of those (majority) who supported the South, also Hispanic Americans and Mexican nationals were painted as border hopping animals as they too supported the South = Today, Lincolns name is next to "Equality" in our national language (and we still hate Hispanics) Lincoln denied there was a God, and debated as a free-thinker, using prayer as a political tool = Lincoln is known as our great Christian President.  

Don't worry, Bush will come out like a rose!  

Ocklawaha
DEO VINDICE!

Ocklawaha, I must say I am surprised at your Confederate apologist post. Please explain to me how firing on supply ships to  Fort Sumter was 'necessary'.  Also explain how the leaders of all the Confederate states all voted for succession, if all the leaders were against going to war.       

By definition, a Civil War is on an entirely different plain than a war against a foreign nation, whether declared or not.  Lincoln's motivation was to save the union, and he morphed the abolition of slavery into the cause.  Doing so did not help his cause in the North, in fact it did the opposite. 

By doing so, a noble result was produced from a gigantic bloodbath that could have merely ended with the union intact but with slaves still enslaved. 

Had Pierce and Buchanan handled things differently, a war might have been averted.  Therefore, they are still our worst Presidents.     

Johnson was somewhat railroaded by the Congress, but he also failed completely to see the moral issues around slavery, thus diluting to some degree the greatest favorable result of the Civil War. 

History has already judged Lincoln, and has put him in his rightful place, as our greatest president.  Bush will be on the opposite end, the only question is the exact position.  One notch above the aforementioned Pierce and Buchanan is quite likely, IMO.   
   

   

I would name Washington our best President.

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 17, 2008, 11:25:00 AM
Some thoughts:
3)  The truth is that the worst Presidents since 1900 have been, beginning with the worst:  (a)  Jimmy Carter, (b)  Lyndon Johnson and (c)  Franklin Roosevelt.

I guess by that list, I assume Hoover was near the top of 'greatest Presidents since 1900' then ...??



The worst since 1900 beginning with the worst 1) Bush#43 2) Hoover 3) Nixon 4) Carter  


The greatest since 1900 beginning with the best: 1) Franklin Roosevelt (saved the nation (Depression) and saved the World (WW2).  2) Theodore Roosevelt (Trust busting, Panama Canal, Conservation) 3) Truman (Victory in Japan, Civil Rights, Marshall Plan)  4) Reagan (won the Cold War).  

QuoteOcklawaha, I must say I am surprised at your Confederate apologist post. Please explain to me how firing on supply ships to  Fort Sumter was 'necessary'.  Also explain how the leaders of all the Confederate states all voted for succession, if all the leaders were against going to war. 

Of course this could just go on and on, some have been fighting this war forever .

Moving troops from Fort Moultree to Sumpter would be considered an act of war. Can you imagine us moving our garrison in Cuba into downtown Havana? If they didn't fire on us, I bet they'd be on edge! Firing on the "Star of the West" was not the act of firing on a defensless supply ship. She carried war material and the South knew it. Further their were another 30 ships ready to sail for Ft. Sumpter, Taylor and Pickens at any time, we can't be sure the Southern gunner knew if this was a single ship or the vangard of a fleet invasion. The shots were not lethal and were warnings, the ship backed off and war (for the moment) was averted.

Voting for succession was NOT a vote for war, any more then voting for the United States in 1776 was a vote for war with the UK. Succession was a move to reclaim the right to self government (whatever the reasons behind it). It's easy to see how things spun out of control. Slavery, or abortion rights, gay marriage or rights, whatever the cause, the states decided to take matters back and make their own decisions. For the United States to deny that right was wrong. It has only "become right" through  the fog of might of arms and history written by the victors.   

QuoteBy definition, a Civil War is on an entirely different plain than a war against a foreign nation, whether declared or not.  Lincoln's motivation was to save the union, and he morphed the abolition of slavery into the cause.  Doing so did not help his cause in the North, in fact it did the opposite.

Yes Sadam never invaded Washington, though the terrorists sure did. He DID however move his troops into Kurd providences and slaughter his own citizens. But in an odd twist, Lincoln did the same thing!

This is true, most of the Northern States threatened to withdraw their troops from the effort if Lincoln issued guns and uniforms to black men. For a reward, the great liberator wanted to round up all "men of color" and ship them back to Africa. (just another reason not to like our "greatest president").

QuoteBy doing so, a noble result was produced from a gigantic bloodbath that could have merely ended with the union intact but with slaves still enslaved. 

Northern States did not free their own slaves until 1875, so to claim Lincoln fought to "free the slaves" is pure BS.

QuoteHad Pierce and Buchanan handled things differently, a war might have been averted.  Therefore, they are still our worst Presidents. 

Had Buchanan's peace been extended under Lincoln by campaign promise, the war would never have happened. 

QuoteJohnson was somewhat railroaded by the Congress, but he also failed completely to see the moral issues around slavery, thus diluting to some degree the greatest favorable result of the Civil War. 

History has already judged Lincoln, and has put him in his rightful place, as our greatest president.

You misunderstand my argument, it is not that freedom and ending slavery was good or bad, it is that we have made a god of Lincoln, that when exposed, was anything but... I'd say one of our worst leaders ever.

QuoteBush will be on the opposite end, the only question is the exact position.  One notch above the aforementioned Pierce and Buchanan is quite likely, IMO.

At least Lincoln will have good company in hell.

Ocklawaha
DEO VINDICE!

QuoteVoting for succession was NOT a vote for war, any more then voting for the United States in 1776 was a vote for war with the UK. Succession was a move to reclaim the right to self government (whatever the reasons behind it). It's easy to see how things spun out of control. Slavery, or abortion rights, gay marriage or rights, whatever the cause, the states decided to take matters back and make their own decisions. For the United States to deny that right was wrong. It has only "become right" through  the fog of might of arms and history written by the victors.   

I'm not a Civil War scholar, but don't you mean secession?

Don't mean to nitpick, sorry.

I love it when y' all are still fighting the war of northern aggression.

Yeah, my bad, Never could use this Yankee english. Hee hee[

As for Zinn, I've seen some of the work, but use little of it. My Confederate opinion is based completely on a set of original works by Davis, Lincoln and the Official Records of the War of Rebellion. The more I read, the more I dislike him. I worked with the "other side" at Oklahoma State University, the history professors on the new revision that everything from the first sin in the Garden to the Challenger explosion was the Souths fault. We started to doccument Lincoln's writting and his legal and illegal moves and when it was over, even these faithful worshipers hated the guy! Not that they ever admitted they liked the South or the Southern view of anything, but they really disliked Lincoln. It's a great and controversial subject to inject into any group and is almost always a great way to start a fire. I really enjoy reading the opinions of others on the subject. Our watered down history really shines. Hell we even work up Riverside Gator! "Hello compatriot!"/color]

Ocklawaha

Quote from: stephendare on April 17, 2008, 01:19:14 PM
Ocklawaha. 

May I suggest that you check out the works of Howard Zinn, if you havent already.

In the book, "Lies My Teacher Told Me"  He makes a very strong case, backed up by the actual correspondence of the time that much of the 20th Century's criticism of Lincoln rests on the back of Klan revisionism during the 1920s.

IMHO, he presents irrefutable proof that this theory that Lincoln did not feel a moral crusade over the freeing of the slaves is just a bunch of malarky, whose dissemination was approved by Princeton Professor and Imperial Grand Wizard, Woodrow Wilson, during an era where such shocking nonsense as 'Birth of a Nation" was considered documentarian.

Are you acquainted with Zinn's work?

More importantly, almost everything that can be done to fix whatever the sins of Lincoln's administration might have been has already been done.  Very likely without the federal power that he created in recreating the idea of the Union saved us from slipping into South American style oligarchy during the age of the Robber Barons.  Without that federal authority, Teddy Roosevelt would have been impotent, and each of the states would have lined up in order to serve new masters.

That doesnt however address the video.  The real time and now.   

Of course slavery was wrong and should never have happened.  The question is what is the best way to end it.  I prefer the Brazilian way which occurred without a war and so much loss of life.  For midway's benefit, here are the wikipedia entries on the topic: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lei_Aurea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Brazil
;D

Yes, let's have a discussion about the evils of, and how to end slavery. I think that issue has been decisively dealt with.

How about we only go back 2X Ock's age?

Quote from: Midway on April 17, 2008, 02:50:04 PM
Yes, let's have a discussion about the evils of, and how to end slavery. I think that issue has been decisively dealt with.

How about we only go back 2X Ock's age?

Your thread is entitled "History's Worst President".  Thus, I thought we had license to go back to the beginning of the Republic.  Or did you mean, the worst President of the last 7 years?

Thanks Compatriot, I was just recalling a similar conversation I had with Joseph and the Pharaoh and a large group of friends at a childhood sleepover. When we were all small kids, we would often lay on the rooftop and talk for hours in the moonlight. As we were discussing Lincoln, with a spot of Captain Morgan, two more friends showed up.  Isis and Osiris put their 2 cents in too, Isis always felt like they had the all the answers. So I injected Bush into the conversation and all of hell broke loose. We had Bush and Lincoln pretty well pegged until Sherman, my pet terradactal bit Julius in the butt, sending him into a rage. The more Caesar yelled, the more Marc Anthony, Erwin Rommel, Cleopatra, Montezuma and I laughed. Though they inflict a nasty bite, the way Juluis carried on, you would have thought we gave him the "Sparticus," or something... We never did get back to our discussion of Lincoln, but we did revist Captain Morgan. In retrospect, I guess age has it's lighter side sometimes.  

Ocklawaha

Actually, the title of the thread is "New Video, history's worst president".

Thats different than me saying That "George W. Bush is History's worst president".

As you may have noticed, that is the title of the video, not an assertion that I was making.


Being the legal scholar that you are, you should be able to understand the difference.

I just was suggesting that we not obfuscate the issue at hand by getting into a protracted discussion on the evils of slavery, or the root causes of the Civil war, although I think that would make a good thread, and everybody would have input for that. Maybe we could even have a reenactment of a key battle or two. You could be the wealthy financier backing the northern forces of aggression.

"Northern States did not free their own slaves until 1875, so to claim Lincoln fought to "free the slaves" is pure BS."

Wait, the 13th amendment was ratified by every northern state WAAAAY before 1875 (Mississippi was the last state to do that in 1995!) so your tmieline has some issues ock...

Stephendare, again, they have all of us convinced "we southrons are the great sinners..." Sorry but Delaware didn't outlaw slavery until Feb 12, 1901!

Not to mention that oriental slavery legal or otherwise, raged right on for another 20 years. You've been to Portland, Oregon, right? Did you visit the slave tunnels? Want to buy a 15 year old China doll? THAT is what the US Government "overlooked" on the West Coast.

Frankly my opinion would upset many, but the nation that nearly exterminated the Native Americans, enslaved the Orientals for child sex and drugs, and allows the Canadians to cross freely but not the little brown people from South of the Border... This very nation didn't have a sudden Heart Fart and decide to lift the Black man from his bonds... If they did it at all, it's because they got themselves into it quite by accident.
For all of you great American humanitarians out there, did you know that Adolph Hitler taught that the Indian Wars were God sent to eliminate the inferior races, and the slaughters under Lincoln were Darwin's theory in it's finest incarnation.

I love this country, it is the BEST in the world, but our history has much to be desired and I won't sugar coat it.  

Ocklawaha

i think the best president was bob dole.

Sometimes you remind me of that darling little Ralph Wiggum. ;D

Quote from: Ocklawaha on April 17, 2008, 04:57:25 PM
Stephendare, again, they have all of us convinced "we southrons are the great sinners..." Sorry but Delaware didn't outlaw slavery until Feb 12, 1901!

Not to mention that oriental slavery legal or otherwise, raged right on for another 20 years. You've been to Portland, Oregon, right? Did you visit the slave tunnels? Want to buy a 15 year old China doll? THAT is what the US Government "overlooked" on the West Coast.

Frankly my opinion would upset many, but the nation that nearly exterminated the Native Americans, enslaved the Orientals for child sex and drugs, and allows the Canadians to cross freely but not the little brown people from South of the Border... This very nation didn't have a sudden Heart Fart and decide to lift the Black man from his bonds... If they did it at all, it's because they got themselves into it quite by accident.
For all of you great American humanitarians out there, did you know that Adolph Hitler taught that the Indian Wars were God sent to eliminate the inferior races, and the slaughters under Lincoln were Darwin's theory in it's finest incarnation.

I love this country, it is the BEST in the world, but our history has much to be desired and I won't sugar coat it.  

Ocklawaha

I too would like to see proof that slavery existed past the enactment of the Constitutional Amendment banning it.

Just because a law is technically on the books, or NOT off the books, does not mean that it is enforced or practiced.  We all know there are laws about adultery, horse theivery, and hundreds of non-sensical or centuries out-of-date practices that are still technically in the legal code.   

Just because they were not technically 'illegal' during a certain period, does not prove that such practices were actually taking place during the time in question.  Since the US Constitution supersedes all state laws that conflict with it, such laws would have no weight behind them anyway.   

Had it not been for the Sherman/Grant methods, the South would never have surrendered.  Hell, the Japs didn't surrender after the first Atomic Bomb!   

The very Klansmen/Confederate Apoligists that insist that history has been revised on this subject, have in reality been the biggest perpetrators of white-washing and historical revision. 

I have Confederate ancestory on both sides, but I thank Jesus and Abraham Lincoln mightily for the fact that the South didn't win, because if it had, I would have been born in a third world country.  So would every other native born Southerner.     

BTW, is it true that Jefferson Davis said the SECOND worst thing to happen to the South was Lincoln's assassination?  I've heard that, and the source is probably more credible than the Neo-Confederate nonsense you have polluted our minds with today.             

Ock:  There was definitely not actual slavery in Delaware in 1900.  The law legalizing slavery may have been technically on the books till 1901 but it was a dead letter.  In other words, it had no legal force or effect because of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the US Constitution which banned slavery and all its vestiges throughout the entire United States and its territories. 

QuoteI too would like to see proof that slavery existed past the enactment of the Constitutional Amendment banning it.

Easy to do, look into Tombstone, or any western history and you'll find shiploads of oriental women coming in for the expressed purpose of servicing American men in cribs... In fact THIS is where the new slang for home came from. "A CRIB" is/was a prison cubical that held young slave women. This aspect of slavery wasn't even attacked until after 1900, in fact it wasn't closed down completely until the 1920's though vestiges of it STILL remain.

Your missing my point in your pro-Yankee praise, I don't like any of it. My own family plantation released the slaves (19 of them) in the 1830's. That deal included the family name and family land. Today when I meet my "black family" I feel they are MY FAMILY... why? Ever heard of DNA? Tell me doctors, when a wet nurse feeds a baby is any of her DNA passed on? If so, what does that make me and millions of other Southrons?  

QuoteJust because a law is technically on the books, or NOT off the books, does not mean that it is enforced or practiced.  We all know there are laws about adultery, horse thievery, and hundreds of non-sensical or centuries out-of-date practices that are still technically in the legal code.

The information I got was from the Delaware Historical Commission, and someone who was working on a paper about slavery that just didn't go away. Though by that time they CYA with volunteer servants, I suppose the girls in the tunnels in Portland and San Francisco were "Volunteers too?" What I'm saying is that Lincoln didn't really do a damn thing for the black race except by default. Freedom is a great thing, One of Hitlers closest advisers was a Jewish mystic, not only was he free, he nearly ran the country until jealous factions in the SS took him out. So would we thank Jesus that Hitler did so much for this Jewish man? NOT! Hitler was an animal (and that insults animals) but sadly Lincoln wasn't much better, in spite of how many crayon pictures  or little paper "black top hats" you made in Kindergarten.  

QuoteJust because they were not technically 'illegal' during a certain period, does not prove that such practices were actually taking place during the time in question.  Since the US Constitution supersedes all state laws that conflict with it, such laws would have no weight behind them anyway.

TRUE? Federal law says POT is illegal but California, Oregon, Alaska and parts of Arkansas don't think so... The law is on the federal books and they have the "right" to raid the suppliers, but somehow the drugs keep on moving. Don't think the pull of illegal labor practices, or free sex was any less at any time in history.   

QuoteHad it not been for the Sherman/Grant methods, the South would never have surrendered.  Hell, the Jap's didn't surrender after the first Atomic Bomb!

Grant certainly taught the US army how to fight, with drunken and horrible tactics you just keep throwing fresh troops at the problem until the other side runs out of men. Let's see at Cold Harbor he wasted 9,000 men in a hopeless frontal assault in 20 minutes. Sherman never saw a civilian that he didn't want to torch... the man had some serious issues and humanity wasn't one of them. Wars then and now are played by rules, Lincoln-Grant-Sherman-Sheridan-Custer were in such disregard for the accepted practices that they nearly picked a fight with the UK and the rest of the world in the "Trent Affair". BTW, one of those commissioners seized aboard His Majesty's Ship was a certain Mr. Mann! There was no humanity or tact in this gang of 5 and had they put their approval on the rape, murders and burning of civilians today, they would all be arrested for war crimes. Want to talk about the JAP'S? They were surrendering, the firebombing of Tokyo was enough, I have read most of their major war works and all agree that had we just backed off and given them some time, surrender would have come within 30 days or so. The reason it didn't is because communication was so destroyed that the island nation was hearing "he said, she said..." from all quarters. The Navy was gone, the Army crippled, the naval air fleet down to a few squadrons without experienced pilots and the Army air force in shambles.... No way they could have continued another 60 days. From this point of view I suppose Dresden was also a act of divine justice?  

QuoteThe very Klansmen/Confederate Apoligists that insist that history has been revised on this subject, have in reality been the biggest perpetrators of white-washing and historical revision.

I love that the accepted facts of the War of Yankee Aggression were rather pro South from the day of Surrender until the 1970's-80's when the revisionist started building a case for the United States to attack the sins of the South. I'm sure "Roots" and the South African mess played into our national mind and with the death of Doctor King, we had to elevate Lincoln and the cause of freedom, lest we look like we were as bad as South Africa. Then when someone with a traditional view of the war comes along, suddenly they are labeled Klansmen and racist. We toss out Hitler and Japan for good measure and shame the truth behind Neo-Nazi name calling. Sorry fellas, but I've never been a Nazi or a racist... I'm in an interracial and international marriage, with my 1/2 breed children. No need to white wash anything, just go to the original sources and read it for yourself. As I said, no way a country bent on extermination of Indian's, slavery for not only black races but many others of various nationality's including whites. A place where slave owners were themselves black, white and mixed races. A country that under one government gave infected blankets to natives (small pox) then under another marched their native allies off on a trail of tears, not equaled until Japan did it to us on Bataan. Determined to take the Southwest from the inferior Spanish and the San Juan islands from the arrogant British... We didn't just wake up one day in 1861 and see a terrible injustice and march off on a holy crusade to right the wrongs of Dixie. Some people I suspect get their history from Hollywood, God help us.  

QuoteI have Confederate ancestry on both sides, but I thank Jesus and Abraham Lincoln mightily for the fact that the South didn't win, because if it had, I would have been born in a third world country.  So would every other native born Southerner. 

"Had the South won its independence, it would have quickly eclipsed the United States in industrial might due to it's favorable tax and tariff system. Slavery was fading fast around the world and would have soon ended without the blame for the incredible hardships of the Southern people. The Confederacy would have become a rich and prosperous nation" Memoirs of U.S. Grant, US President. It is sad to see a son or daughter of Dixie thinking so little of their own abilities and that of their ancestors. While it can be said I would not lift a finger to assure slavery for anyone, I would fight even today to protect my Florida from any invader foreign or domestic. Had I died at Olustee or St. Johns Bluff or McCoys Creek or Brick Church with a rifle in my hand, under the stars and bars, I can't think of a more noble reason then defending ones homeland.   

QuoteBTW, is it true that Jefferson Davis said the SECOND worst thing to happen to the South was Lincoln's assassination?  I've heard that, and the source is probably more credible than the Neo-Confederate nonsense you have polluted our minds with today.

Certainly Davis knew the death at that period in time did no one any good. Davis was a US Senator before the war and is the  main reason for the existence of the Smithsonian today. His book the Rise and Fall of the Confederate Nation is a great read and covers much of what we are all discussing today. Stephendare, or you or anyone else is welcome to borrow my copy, provided you don't think hearing from my president, will pollute your mind with nonsense. But then as you call into question my credibility then label me a Neo-Confederate for taking an unpopular stand, I could see where fear of reading anything that didn't agree with your version might scare you. By the way, for future reference... I am a many-times published Historian and Author, "Neo-Confederate"? Hell no! I am a UN-reconstructed Southerner, call it what you want, but I am as Confederate as Robert E. Lee, and I bet the fact that I don't "hate" anybody, really drills you but then...Eventus stultorum magister, or maybe history is just not y'alls game, not everyone likes facts when their painful... I know, lets have a spelling contest!

;DOcklawaha

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 17, 2008, 11:25:00 AM
So, it is no wonder that he dislikes the center-right Bush.

Center right? 
Sorry, there is absolutely not factual way one can refer to GWB as centrist in any meaningful way.  Corporate greed/crime, death penalty, religion in politics, war, economic matters, judicial matters-- any subject, he is in no way centrist at all.  And herein lies the problem, Repubs want to make this a debate of opinion, when it is plainly factual: the guy is so far right he makes staunchies like McCain look centrist. 

Bush is far right?

Yeah, that's why he signed the bill to ban incandescent lightbulbs in 2012. ::) If anything, he's a corporate leftist masked as a center-right.

Quote from: Eazy E on April 18, 2008, 08:37:51 AM

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 17, 2008, 11:25:00 AM
So, it is no wonder that he dislikes the center-right Bush.

Center right? 
Sorry, there is absolutely not factual way one can refer to GWB as centrist in any meaningful way.  Corporate greed/crime, death penalty, religion in politics, war, economic matters, judicial matters-- any subject, he is in no way centrist at all.  And herein lies the problem, Repubs want to make this a debate of opinion, when it is plainly factual: the guy is so far right he makes staunchies like McCain look centrist. 

Actually, there are large numbers of conservatives who are dissatisfied with Bush for spending too much, expanding the government, not properly addressing the immigration problem, etc, etc.  It is just that Bush has been the viable lesser of two evils in both of his elections and he had the good fortune to run against two of the biggest elitist buffoons in the Democrat Party - Gore and Kerry.

Quote from: Charleston native on April 18, 2008, 09:16:21 AM
Bush is far right?

Yeah, that's why he signed the bill to ban incandescent lightbulbs in 2012. ::) If anything, he's a corporate leftist masked as a center-right.

You should be even more upset about the banning of the transmission of analog television signals next year.

1. It ends a technology that has been in place for over 60 years and works just fine.
2. It compels you to buy new or additional equipment to do the same thing you are already doing.
3. And even worse than the light bulb situation, it renders your current TV useless unless you buy a converter    box.  (You will still be able to use any light bulbs you already have.)

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 17, 2008, 11:52:40 PM
Ock:  There was definitely not actual slavery in Delaware in 1900.  The law legalizing slavery may have been technically on the books till 1901 but it was a dead letter.  In other words, it had no legal force or effect because of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the US Constitution which banned slavery and all its vestiges throughout the entire United States and its territories. 

Ock: Beware of this tricky sentence structure; he's a lawyer.

When he says "There was definitely not actual slavery in Delaware in 1900", what he means is that there might have been "virtual" slavery.

The word "actual" used this way is a weasel modifier.

Quote from: Midway on April 18, 2008, 01:56:00 PM
You should be even more upset about the banning of the transmission of analog television signals next year.

1. It ends a technology that has been in place for over 60 years and works just fine.
2. It compels you to buy new or additional equipment to do the same thing you are already doing.
3. And even worse than the light bulb situation, it renders your current TV useless unless you buy a converter    box.  (You will still be able to use any light bulbs you already have.)

I'm actually a little perturbed about it, but here's why I'm not as upset:

1. The technology is actually a higher quality product that enhances entertainment value (a measurable benefit).
2. Considering current trends, the market was heading towards this path as it is. Different technologies were becoming incompatible, which diminished communication and entertainment sources: a tangible, measurable problem. Again, the benefits of it are a huge improvement from analog signal in picture clarity and sound and synchronization of forms of media to a completely digital format.
3. It's a one-time purchase. I may have to buy a converter box, but I'll only need it once. Afterwards, I'll just buy a digital TV which will be lower in price than it is currently. With bulbs, I'll have to constantly purchase them for the rest of my life (well, unless I go with my plan to buy crates of regular bulbs and store them in my attic!).
4. Environmental cleanup....uhhhh, there is none to worry about with the TVs. For the bulbs, I practically have to call HAZMAT if I break one or want to dispose them.
5. Pollution: TVs and their parts can be recycled. CFL bulbs pose a huge risk of contaminating the soil and water supplies.

Quote from: Charleston native on April 18, 2008, 03:42:36 PM
3. It's a one-time purchase. I may have to buy a converter box, but I'll only need it once. Afterwards, I'll just buy a digital TV which will be lower in price than it is currently. With bulbs, I'll have to constantly purchase them for the rest of my life (well, unless I go with my plan to buy crates of regular bulbs and store them in my attic!).

Don't CFL's last for 5 or 6 years? I think I buy a new tv more often than that. Also, they save so much electricity, that they will actually save you money in the long term.

Not to worry. About 680 million of the standard old fashioned fluorescent tubes are disposed of annually, releasing 4-8 tons of mercury annually into the environment. This has been going on for about 40 years.

See the complete report at:

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/research/mercury-bulbs.pdf

Burning coal releases much more mercury than that. In reality the bulk of mercury pollution comes from certain chemical plants and the combustion of coal that is used to illuminate your lights. also produced is the following:

QuoteKnow Where It's Coming From
Each year power plants and chemical facilities create many tons of mercury pollution, which makes its way into our homes and bodies in fish.

Two of the biggest sources of mercury pollution are chlorine chemical plants and coal-fired power plants. Chlorine plants, which use massive quantities of mercury to extract chlorine from salt, "lose" dozens of tons of mercury each year; power plants emit around 50 tons of mercury pollution annually. Facilities that recycle auto scrap are another big source of mercury pollution, pouring 10 to 12 tons of mercury into the air every year. The most common way Americans are exposed to mercury is through tuna fish.

http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/mercury/sources.asp

So, you see the more electricity you use, the more mercury you will release into the air. Your sudden environmental concern is a positive turn for you, but there have been reports of toxic levels of mercury in tuna since 1960.

And look at us, were just fine, thank you. No need to worry about mercury, it was even in vaccines. Perfectly harmless, it is.

Quote from: fightingosprey07 on April 18, 2008, 03:51:35 PM
Don't CFL's last for 5 or 6 years? I think I buy a new tv more often than that. Also, they save so much electricity, that they will actually save you money in the long term.

Something tells me you're not buying quality TVs. I've had a 36" Toshiba for over 11 years now with no problems (knock on wood).

Please let's not start over this debate with the bulbs. That's in another thread. Many studies on CFLs show that they will not save you money in the long term due to other costs (disposal, breakage and cleanup, ambient heating, etc.). Besides, the new TVs actually use less electricity, and TVs pull far more power from the grid than bulbs. In truth, the TVs should have more of an impact on energy usage than bulbs.

Midway, that fact is exactly why more nuclear plants should be built and utilized. In addition, coal plants are producing clean coal technology for cleaner burns.

Again, to steer back on topic, the environmental policies that the president has implemented demonstrate the idiocy of the green movement and the true reason behind them: profit. I said before in another thread that if Bush keeps running with this lunacy, many of the posters' predictions of him being the worst president may be accurate.

Quote from: Midway on April 18, 2008, 02:00:46 PM

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 17, 2008, 11:52:40 PM
Ock:  There was definitely not actual slavery in Delaware in 1900.  The law legalizing slavery may have been technically on the books till 1901 but it was a dead letter.  In other words, it had no legal force or effect because of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the US Constitution which banned slavery and all its vestiges throughout the entire United States and its territories. 

Ock: Beware of this tricky sentence structure; he's a lawyer.

When he says "There was definitely not actual slavery in Delaware in 1900", what he means is that there might have been "virtual" slavery.

The word "actual" used this way is a weasel modifier.

The only "weasel" here is you.  But thanks anyway for the failed attempt to dissect my statement.  The actual purpose for saying "actual" was to distinguish legal slavery from illegal slavery.  Thus, I meant to convey that there was no de jure (legal) slavery in Delaware in 1900 although there may have been de facto slavery somewhere in the state (i.e. labor camps with slavery type conditions, domestic slavery situations, etc).  This really isnt that difficult a concept for most people to grasp.

Well then, if you mean LEGAL, then say LEGAL, not ACTUAL, which has an entirely different meaning.

I didn't call you any names. Don't do that with me.

For your reference:

le·gal     Audio Help   /ˈligəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lee-guhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
â€"adjective
1.   permitted by law; lawful: Such acts are not legal.
2.   of or pertaining to law; connected with the law or its administration: the legal profession.
3.   appointed, established, or authorized by law; deriving authority from law.
4.   recognized by law rather than by equity.
5.   of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the profession of law or of lawyers: a legal mind.
6.   Theology.
a.   of or pertaining to the Mosaic Law.
b.   of or pertaining to the doctrine that salvation is gained by good works rather than through free grace.
â€"noun
7.   a person who acts in a legal manner or with legal authority.
8.   an alien who has entered a country legally.
9.   a person whose status is protected by law.
10.   a fish or game animal, within specified size or weight limitations, that the law allows to be caught and kept during an appropriate season.
11.   a foreigner who conducts espionage against a host country while working there in a legitimate capacity, often in the diplomatic service.
12.   legals, authorized investments that may be made by fiduciaries, as savings banks or trustees.
[Origin: 1490â€"1500; < L légālis of the law, equiv. to lég- (s. of léx) law + -ālis -al1]

â€"Related forms
le·gal·ly, adverb

â€"Synonyms 3. licit, legitimate, sanctioned.


ac·tu·al     Audio Help   /ˈæktʃuəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ak-choo-uhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
â€"adjective
1.   existing in act or fact; real: an actual case of heroism; actual expenses.
2.   existing now; present; current: The ship's actual position is 22 miles due east of Miami.
3.   Obsolete. pertaining to or involving acts or action.
[Origin: 1275â€"1325; < LL āctuālis, equiv. to L āctu- (s. of action n. āctus; see act) + -ālis -al1; r. ME actuel < MF < L]

Was not commenting on its accuracy. Just the weird use of "Actually" which has crept into the language as something that is usually (and in this case was) meaningless.

But all seriousness aside,  I thought it was pretty crazy in a funny, weird and pathetic sort of way.

Any how, I have received my first post back from my Chinese affiliates, and I sure hope that those devils haven't tricked me;

The funny part is, that John Ashcroft was ACTUALLY the voice of reason in these meetings, by allegedly stating "that history would not look kindly on this".

Well it's been fun fellas, I've had a ball tossing Lincoln bombs into the fray, but truth be told, I really don't like him. I think y'all miss my point,
As for slavery long after the war, black, oriental or otherwise, it just goes to show, Lincoln really did very little but use the minoritys to save his butt. Had there been a true moral campaign, I think it would have ended English style and without bloodshed. Grant himself said so and WTF, I don't like him either! But the real fun is watching people fizz right over the edge at the mention of Lincoln and Asshole in the same sentence. So for all of you who worship in front of a $5.00 bill or a penny... "Lincoln-Asshole", "Lincoln-Asshole", Lincoln-... etc..." Gee that was fun. In the military we called this "Fire for effect..."

I'm afraid Bush is about as bad, and we had such high hopes for little George. I've even wondered if the age old prophecys of the end of time... that stuff that can be heard in any Christian church on any given weekend isn't off target. We keep looking for this man of evil and this evil empire to take control of the world... Um hello people... we have met the enemy and they are us!?!? Makes you wonder. Now that McCain is posiitioned to move into the kings throne, I wonder if were all mad here.
Well Y'all, it's been fun... I think you missed about 1/2 of my point on Lincoln, I really think he is WAY overrated

Ocklawaha

u are correct...those guys are pretty awesome.

they had a good point.  you start to expect and can almost predict when some people are lying because they do it so often.  hillary is just one example.

Quote from: stephendare on April 18, 2008, 07:57:55 PM
By the way, have you seen this new video about the winner of the 2008 election for president?
I wonder what kind of video would be made about either hillary or john being any kind of inspiration to anyone?

OMG!!   LOL!!   ROFL!!  I hardly ever actually read your posts or watch all the ridiculous videos you post.  I HAVE to start reading them more and watching these things.  That cracks me up.  How ridiculous!!!  lol....i watch that and say "How insulting to my intelligence and the intelligence of the intended audience."  You watch and are in awe.  LOL.

"Baaaaahhh... i'm a little sheep...where do you want me to go 'Change Shepherd' Barack?  Play your pipe and I'll follow you down the Golden Brick Road of Change to the ends of the earth!!!"

Quote from: Midway on April 18, 2008, 06:15:26 PM
Well then, if you mean LEGAL, then say LEGAL, not ACTUAL, which has an entirely different meaning.

I didn't call you any names. Don't do that with me.

For your reference:

le·gal     Audio Help   /ˈligəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lee-guhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
â€"adjective
1.   permitted by law; lawful: Such acts are not legal.
2.   of or pertaining to law; connected with the law or its administration: the legal profession.
3.   appointed, established, or authorized by law; deriving authority from law.
4.   recognized by law rather than by equity.
5.   of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the profession of law or of lawyers: a legal mind.
6.   Theology.
a.   of or pertaining to the Mosaic Law.
b.   of or pertaining to the doctrine that salvation is gained by good works rather than through free grace.
â€"noun
7.   a person who acts in a legal manner or with legal authority.
8.   an alien who has entered a country legally.
9.   a person whose status is protected by law.
10.   a fish or game animal, within specified size or weight limitations, that the law allows to be caught and kept during an appropriate season.
11.   a foreigner who conducts espionage against a host country while working there in a legitimate capacity, often in the diplomatic service.
12.   legals, authorized investments that may be made by fiduciaries, as savings banks or trustees.
[Origin: 1490â€"1500; < L légālis of the law, equiv. to lég- (s. of léx) law + -ālis -al1]

â€"Related forms
le·gal·ly, adverb

â€"Synonyms 3. licit, legitimate, sanctioned.


ac·tu·al     Audio Help   /ˈæktʃuəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ak-choo-uhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
â€"adjective
1.   existing in act or fact; real: an actual case of heroism; actual expenses.
2.   existing now; present; current: The ship's actual position is 22 miles due east of Miami.
3.   Obsolete. pertaining to or involving acts or action.
[Origin: 1275â€"1325; < LL āctuālis, equiv. to L āctu- (s. of action n. āctus; see act) + -ālis -al1; r. ME actuel < MF < L]

It was clear I was referring to state sanctioned, legal slavery.  Using your "logic", there is still slavery in the US today because some rare individuals illegally practice it. 

Quote from: Midway on April 18, 2008, 08:22:17 PM
Was not commenting on its accuracy. Just the weird use of "Actually" which has crept into the language as something that is usually (and in this case was) meaningless.

But all seriousness aside,  I thought it was pretty crazy in a funny, weird and pathetic sort of way.

Any how, I have received my first post back from my Chinese affiliates, and I sure hope that those devils haven't tricked me;

You are truly a wordsmith.   ::)

Quote from: stephendare on April 18, 2008, 07:57:55 PM
By the way, have you seen this new video about the winner of the 2008 election for president?

http://www.youtube.com/v/aAImJdNUzoc

I wonder what kind of video would be made about either hillary or john being any kind of inspiration to anyone?

I am confused.  Why does one need a politician to look like them in order for them to be encouraged to go to college?  I wonder how much black college attendance has increased in those cities in which blacks are Mayors.  I would bet there is no relationship.

Quote from: stephendare on April 19, 2008, 11:17:18 AM
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/18/crowd_breaks_obama_record_in_p.html

35 thousand people FOR A PRIMARY RALLY.  In Philadelphia no less.

As a side note.  With a few exceptions over the years, I am consistently surprised by the number of conservatives and neo conservatives who have never read the Advise and Consent series.

I do not think it would be possible to overstate the importance of this body of work to the Republican Revolution and it is the sourcework for almost all of the Conservative mythos one cares to name.

Allen Drury pretty much created the idea of a Liberal Media Bias, and with the first book of the series, "Advise and Consent" having won a Pulitzer, those ideas were transmitted to millions of people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advise_and_Consent

also interesting is the real life incident which the storyline of advise and consent is based on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_Hunt

The Obama phenomenon is definitely a movement, but it aint an intellectual one.

BTW Stephen, be careful about using wikipedia as a source on here.  Midway does not approve.  Far better to quote an obscure left wing blogger or perhaps a holistic medicine site.   ;D

Actually, I read somewhere that wikipedia was quite accurate.  I need to dig up the source and post it.  And it will be an actual source, not the wikipedia article.   ;)

Here is one article:

Quote
Wikipedia survives research test

The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows.

The British journal Nature examined a range of scientific entries on both works of reference and found few differences in accuracy.

Wikipedia is produced by volunteers, who add entries and edit any page.

But it has been criticised for the correctness of entries, most recently over the biography of prominent US journalist John Seigenthaler.

Open approach

Wikipedia was founded in 2001 and has since grown to more than 1.8 million articles in 200 languages. Some 800,000 entries are in English.

It is based on wikis, open-source software which lets anyone fiddle with a webpage, anyone reading a subject entry can disagree, edit, add, delete, or replace the entry.

   
We're very pleased with the results and we're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good

It relies on 13,000 volunteer contributors, many of whom are experts in a particular field, to edit previously submitted articles.

In order to test its reliability, Nature conducted a peer review of scientific entries on Wikipedia and the well-established Encyclopedia Britannica.

The reviewers were asked to check for errors, but were not told about the source of the information.

"Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopedia," reported Nature.

"But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively."

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales welcomed the study.

"We're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good," he said.

Writing style

Nature said its reviewers found that Wikipedia entries were often poorly structured and confused.

The Encyclopedia Britannica declined to comment directly on the findings; but a spokesman highlighted the quality of the entries on the free resource.

"But it is not the case that errors creep in on an occasional basis or that a couple of articles are poorly written," Tom Panelas, director of corporate communications is quoted as saying in Nature.

"There are lots of articles in that condition. They need a good editor."

Wikipedia came under fire earlier this month from prominent US journalist John Seigenthaler.

The founding editorial director of USA Today attacked a Wikipedia entry that incorrectly named him as a suspect in the assassinations of president John F Kennedy and his brother, Robert.

The false information was the work of Tennessean Brian Chase, who said he was trying to trick a co-worker.

Wikipedia has responded to the criticisms by tightening up procedures.

Next month it plans to begin testing a new mechanism for reviewing the accuracy of its articles.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm

And another:

QuoteProfessors Should Embrace Wikipedia

By Mark A. Wilson

When the online, anyone-can-edit Wikipedia appeared in 2001, teachers, especially college professors, were appalled. The Internet was already an apparently limitless source of nonsense for their students to eagerly consume â€" now there was a Web site with the appearance of legitimacy and a dead-easy interface that would complete the seduction until all sense of fact, fiction, myth and propaganda blended into a popular culture of pseudointelligence masking the basest ignorance. An Inside Higher Ed article just last year on Wikipedia use in the academy drew a huge and passionate response, much of it negative.
       
Now the English version of Wikipedia has over 2 million articles, and it has been translated into over 250 languages. It has become so massive that you can type virtually any noun into a search engine and the first link will be to a Wikipedia page. After seven years and this exponential growth, Wikipedia can still be edited by anyone at any time. A generation of students was warned away from this information siren, but we know as professors that it is the first place they go to start a research project, look up an unfamiliar term from lecture, or find something disturbing to ask about during the next lecture. In fact, we learned too that Wikipedia is indeed the most convenient repository of information ever invented, and we go there often â€" if a bit covertly â€" to get a few questions answered. Its accuracy, at least for science articles, is actually as high as the revered Encyclopedia Britannica, as shown by a test published in the journal Nature.

It is time for the academic world to recognize Wikipedia for what it has become: a global library open to anyone with an Internet connection and a pressing curiosity. The vision of its founders, Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, has become reality, and the librarians were right: the world has not been the same since. If the Web is the greatest information delivery device ever, and Wikipedia is the largest coherent store of information and ideas, then we as teachers and scholars should have been on this train years ago for the benefit of our students, our professions, and that mystical pool of human knowledge.

What Wikipedia too often lacks is academic authority, or at least the perception of it. Most of its thousands of editors are anonymous, sometimes known only by an IP address or a cryptic username. Every article has a “talk” page for discussions of content, bias, and organization. “Revert” wars can rage out of control as one faction battles another over a few words in an article. Sometimes administrators have to step in and lock a page down until tempers cool and the main protagonists lose interest. The very anonymity of the editors is often the source of the problem: how do we know who has an authoritative grasp of the topic?

That is what academics do best. We can quickly sort out scholarly authority into complex hierarchies with a quick glance at a vita and a sniff at a publication list. We make many mistakes doing this, of course, but at least our debates are supported with citations and a modicum of civility because we are identifiable and we have our reputations to maintain and friends to keep. Maybe this academic culture can be added to the Wild West of Wikipedia to make it more useful for everyone?

I propose that all academics with research specialties, no matter how arcane (and nothing is too obscure for Wikipedia), enroll as identifiable editors of Wikipedia. We then watch over a few wikipages of our choosing, adding to them when appropriate, stepping in to resolve disputes when we know something useful. We can add new articles on topics which should be covered, and argue that others should be removed or combined. This is not to displace anonymous editors, many of whom possess vast amounts of valuable information and innovative ideas, but to add our authority and hard-won knowledge to this growing universal library.

The advantages should be obvious. First, it is another outlet for our scholarship, one that may be more likely to be read than many of our journals. Second, we are directly serving our students by improving the source they go to first for information. Third, by identifying ourselves, we can connect with other scholars and interested parties who stumble across our edits and new articles. Everyone wins.

I have been an open Wikipedia editor now for several months. I have enjoyed it immensely. In my teaching I use a “living syllabus” for each course, which is a kind of academic blog. (For example, see my History of Life course online syllabus.) I connect students through links to outside sources of information. Quite often I refer students to Wikipedia articles that are well-sourced and well written. Wikipages that are not so good are easily fixed with a judicious edit or two, and many pages become more useful with the addition of an image from my collection (all donated to the public domain). Since I am open in my editorial identity, I often get questions from around the world about the topics I find most fascinating. I’ve even made important new connections through my edits to new collaborators and reporters who want more background for a story.

For example, this year I met online a biology professor from Centre College who is interested in the ecology of fish on Great Inagua Island in the Bahamas. He saw my additions and images on that Wikipedia page and had several questions about the island. He invited me to speak at Centre next year about evolution-creation controversies, which is unrelated to the original contact but flowed from our academic conversations. I in turn have been learning much about the island’s living ecology I did not know. I’ve also learned much about the kind of prose that is most effective for a general audience, and I’ve in turn taught some people how to properly reference ideas and information. In short, I’ve expanded my teaching.

Wikipedia as we know it will undoubtedly change in the coming years as all technologies do. By involving ourselves directly and in large numbers now, we can help direct that change into ever more useful ways for our students and the public. This is, after all, our sacred charge as teacher-scholars: to educate when and where we can to the greatest effect.

Mark A. Wilson is a professor of geology at the College of Wooster.

http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2008/04/01/wilson

Some more on wikipedia (links in original only) from Professor Mark Perry's blog (of the University of Michigan at Flint):

QuoteIn Defense of Wikipedia: I Kinda Like It

Columbia Journalism Review--At the end of the day, Wikipedia looks less like the reputation-munching monster it’s being portrayed as, and more like the future of information in the Internet age.

Professor Mark Goodacre, Duke University--It is becoming fashionable among academics these days to have a go at Wikipedia. This is inevitable for a variety of reasons. Academics are often behind their students in the use of new technology, and this brings about a reaction of fear. We witnessed the same thing with the advent of the World Wide Web in the 1990s and now that fears about the academic value of Internet resources has diminished, a new, narrower target has been found. It is an easy target because its open source basis makes it often apparently "unreliable." Negative reactions to the use of Wikipedia in the classroom, however, are unnecessary and should be discouraged.

Professor Tyler Cowen--Critiques of Wikipedia miss its comparative advantage. Entries tend to be link-rich, and the ongoing debate and revisions refresh and improve the links. Think of Wikipedia as hiring someone to do search engine work for you, not just Google but the other brands as well. They then report back with the best links. Wikipedia brings you this service for free.

Washington Post Blog--Even the most celebrated sources of fact are frequently flawed. A study by the scientific journal Nature investigated the legitimacy of both Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica, a widely respected information outlet. Through a random sampling of articles, the study discovered 162 errors from Wikipedia and 123 from the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Ultimately, Wikipedia is more than merely a source of information; it is a global system that promotes a constant exchange of information. Its purpose is to encourage a dynamic flow of knowledge, an element that is critical to this era of globalization.


Duke Professor Cathy Davidson--Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia. It is a knowledge community, uniting anonymous readers all over the world who edit and correct grammar, style, interpretations, and facts. It is a community devoted to a common good â€" the life of the intellect. Isn't that what we educators want to model for our students?

As a cultural historian and historian of technology, I find that I often go to Wikipedia for a quick and easy reference before heading into more-scholarly depths. I'm often surprised at how sound and good a first source it is.

Comment: There are a lot of Wikipedia-skeptics out there, especially in academia, where it seems to be almost universally condemned, banned and ridiculed by professors.

Well, at the risk of being an academic heretic, I have a confession to make: I like Wikipedia, and often go there first when trying to find information on the Internet. For example, check out the Wikipedia listing for Gross Domestic Product. In addition to links for original sources of GDP data in many countries, there are many useful ranked lists at the end of the Wikipedia GDP entry, based on GDP using data from the IMF, World Bank and the CIA World Factbook with adjustments for inflation, PPP and per capita, etc. (I refer to these lists often):

List of countries by GDP (nominal), (per capita)
List of countries by GDP (PPP), (per capita), (per hour)
List of countries by GDP (real) growth rate, (per capita)
List of countries by GDP sector composition
List of countries by future GDP estimates (PPP), (per capita), (nominal)
List of countries by past GDP (PPP), (nominal)

Wikipedia is in its infancy, and will likely continue to improve significantly over time. Wikipedia-skeptics, give it some time. It'll likely be the "future of information in the Internet age."

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/04/in-defense-of-wikipedia-i-like-it.html

Quote

Actually, there are large numbers of conservatives who are dissatisfied with Bush for spending too much, expanding the government, not properly addressing the immigration problem, etc, etc.  It is just that Bush has been the viable lesser of two evils in both of his elections and he had the good fortune to run against two of the biggest elitist buffoons in the Democrat Party - Gore and Kerry.

Okay, wow a few issues where looney-ass far right crazies disagree with him.  How about his VAST and UNPARALLELED expansion of executive power? How about his now proven advancement of torture as a viable method of interrogation? How about his absolute refusal to do anything about corporate corruption? How about his using the armed forces in also unparalleled ways? How about his use of presidential signing statements to subvert the law? How about his actually cutting taxes in a time of war to pander shamelessly to the Grover Norquist idiot crowd? How about his also unparalleled co-mingling of religion and government? How about his use of government departments (we can just start with DOJ) to illegally advance partisan political causes? How about his utter flailure (flailing failure) on New Orleans-- Heckuva a job, Brownie! ideed.

Yes, because on two issues he doesn't go with the extreme morons, he is suddenly "centrist".  C'mon, you're smarter than that, RG, if you were a Gator. It is simply no longer an opinion issue; Bush is far right, and clearly one of the worst president's ever, and probably the worst of the modern era.
Unless you happen to be like my wife's millionaire ex-boss who got a free Lexus SUV and Infinity SUV because of the tax cuts, in which case you think he's the greatest...and in which case you're also a greedy, short-sighted asshole.

Crazy E: Bravo.

The only things that are incorrect in your post is the out of place apostrophe, and  that RG is NOT an A@#hole. He is merely a sycophant disciple who is in a position to benefit from the decisions made by the current administration. He deludes himself into believing that what is financially beneficial for him is good for the country, but he is really playing his financial self interest, and because you are morally corrupt and educationally inferior, you are just not capable of understanding the situation. But not to worry, he will bring the truth to you.

The "liberal" agenda seeks to move his cheese. Bad things can happen when you move his cheese.

But anyhows, let's get back onto the discussion of how Wiki is much improved. That's so stimulating and germane to who's the worst president.

IMHO, anyone who uses anything on the Wiki without first vetting it against at least a second source imperils their reputation. 


Stephen:
Theoretical self interest??? You mean he's delusional? 

Of course he's confused.  Where and how would he establish a point of reference on an issue like this?

Quote from: Eazy E on April 21, 2008, 08:24:44 PM

Quote

Actually, there are large numbers of conservatives who are dissatisfied with Bush for spending too much, expanding the government, not properly addressing the immigration problem, etc, etc.  It is just that Bush has been the viable lesser of two evils in both of his elections and he had the good fortune to run against two of the biggest elitist buffoons in the Democrat Party - Gore and Kerry.

Okay, wow a few issues where looney-ass far right crazies disagree with him.  How about his VAST and UNPARALLELED expansion of executive power? How about his now proven advancement of torture as a viable method of interrogation? How about his absolute refusal to do anything about corporate corruption? How about his using the armed forces in also unparalleled ways? How about his use of presidential signing statements to subvert the law? How about his actually cutting taxes in a time of war to pander shamelessly to the Grover Norquist idiot crowd? How about his also unparalleled co-mingling of religion and government? How about his use of government departments (we can just start with DOJ) to illegally advance partisan political causes? How about his utter flailure (flailing failure) on New Orleans-- Heckuva a job, Brownie! ideed.

I think some of this would fall under the "etc, etc" in my above post, some of this conservatives actually support and some of this is just nonsense.  And, how about trying to make a point without using an annoying leading question?

Quote
Yes, because on two issues he doesn't go with the extreme morons, he is suddenly "centrist". 

Someone who does not agree with you is a "moron" now.  Coming from you, I will take this as a compliment.  I can tell you are a man of deep thought.

QuoteC'mon, you're smarter than that, RG, if you were a Gator.

I'm not a real Gator.

QuoteIt is simply no longer an opinion issue; Bush is far right, and clearly one of the worst president's ever, and probably the worst of the modern era.

Actually, this is entirely an opinion issue.  The results of all of this will be known to future generations of historians, who will also disagree on their meaning.  Trust me on this.

QuoteUnless you happen to be like my wife's millionaire ex-boss who got a free Lexus SUV and Infinity SUV because of the tax cuts, in which case you think he's the greatest...and in which case you're also a greedy, short-sighted asshole.

I would never purchase a Lexus or an Infinity (sic).  How nouveau riche. 

Quote from: Midway on April 21, 2008, 09:57:41 PM
Crazy E: Bravo.

Finally you have found your intellectual match.   ;)

Quote
The only things that are incorrect in your post is the out of place apostrophe, and  that RG is NOT an A@#hole. He is merely a sycophant disciple who is in a position to benefit from the decisions made by the current administration. He deludes himself into believing that what is financially beneficial for him is good for the country, but he is really playing his financial self interest, and because you are morally corrupt and educationally inferior, you are just not capable of understanding the situation. But not to worry, he will bring the truth to you.

Actually, the Republicans passed legislation which directly affected my area of the law and resulted in me losing a good deal of money over the past few years.  But, I have adapted and overcome this.  And, I never vote based on my self-interest.  I vote based on the best interests of the country.  I suggest you do the same and vote Republican this November.    :)

Quote
But anyhows, let's get back onto the discussion of how Wiki is much improved. That's so stimulating and germane to who's the worst president.

I thought we had agreed that it was Jimmy Carter.

Quote
IMHO, anyone who uses anything on the Wiki without first vetting it against at least a second source imperils their reputation. 

Much as does someone who cites holistic learning sites for primary sources.   :D

Quote from: Midway on April 21, 2008, 10:16:43 PM
Of course he's confused.  Where and how would he establish a point of reference on an issue like this?

You are so hip.

good grief.

Quote
Actually, the Republicans passed legislation which directly affected my area of the law and resulted in me losing a good deal of money over the past few years.  But, I have adapted and overcome this.  And, I never vote based on my self-interest.  I vote based on the best interests of the country.  I suggest you do the same and vote Republican this November.

I guess you were practicing constitutional law. :D Sorry about that. (The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005?) But I bet you just love the reduced capital gains rate.

Guess again.

I really dont know why I bother with this crowd.

The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. Isn't that a laughable name?

It's kind of like the store that has a sign outside that says "wholesale"

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 21, 2008, 10:52:59 PM
Guess again.

I really dont know why I bother with this crowd.

Because we're a bunch of idiots in need of salvation.

And you are just the guy to do it.

I guess you could always go over to "The Morgue" and post.

Apparently, some people will never learn...

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 21, 2008, 10:59:39 PM
Apparently, some people will never learn...

au contraire, my little friend.

I have studied and learned at the hand of the master. ;D

RiversideGator said:

QuoteActually, the Republicans passed legislation which directly affected my area of the law and resulted in me losing a good deal of money over the past few years.  But, I have adapted and overcome this.  And, I never vote based on my self-interest.  I vote based on the best interests of the country.  I suggest you do the same and vote Republican this November.

That was so human, compelling and sad. It made me think of this:

http://www.youtube.com/v/hBvpxzl54D8&hl=en

Probably before your time, but you can ask Ock.

QuoteUnless you happen to be like my wife's millionaire ex-boss who got a free Lexus SUV and Infinity SUV because of the tax cuts, in which case you think he's the greatest...and in which case you're also a greedy, short-sighted asshole.

I would never purchase a Lexus or an Infinity (sic).  How nouveau riche. 
[/quote]

That was not directed at you personally, just at repubs who vote with their wallets and own personal financial situation in mind.

And, vote Repub in the Fall? Are you out of your mind?  Yes, please give me more deregulation, Mr. McCain, especially in the financial sector-- "The Markets will figure it out!". And please, Mr. McCain, continue riding the Straight Talk Express while your entire managing apparatus, at the senior level, is stacked with Washington's highest paid lobbiests-- I didn't want you to pay attention to my needs.  And, please, Mr. McCain, can we continue to literally piss away BILLIONS of dollars on the Iraq war for another 100 years, please? And, please RiverisdeGator, can we elect a man who has 1) admitted he doesn't know jackshit about the economy, (but he has Greenspan's book!), and 2) has proven, with several unbelievable gaffes, that his "foreign policy expertise" is a complete sham as well. And, why, that is so interesting, Mr. McCain, that you would ACTUALLY VOTE 'YES' ON A BILL TO ALLOW THE U.S. TO CONTINUE TO <B> TORTURE</B> PEOPLE because your too chickenshit to stand up to the loony assholes in your party. 

Vote for McCain: endless war, and no economic rebound.

Yes, because Obama is an economy wizard having never even had a job in the private sector (unless you count "community organizer" as a job).  :D

The truth is McCain's general instinct is towards the free market and lower taxes and regulations and he has surrounded himself with key, free market supporters like Steve Forbes and Phil Gramm.  Compared with Obama's or Hillary's positions and supporters, McCain looks like a regular Milton Friedman. 

Quote from: Midway on April 21, 2008, 11:19:36 PM
That was so human, compelling and sad. It made me think of this:

http://www.youtube.com/v/hBvpxzl54D8&hl=en

Probably before your time, but you can ask Ock.

Sorry but I dont have time to watch a Jimmy Stewart movie.  I am a fan though.  Dont need your faux sympathy either.  Thanks anyway though. 

Stephen, I think the major quandary, that I find myself in (I can't speak for River, though I'm sure he may feel similarly), is supporting someone who was right on a few things, but he has been terribly inept in execution of plans and has definitely been wrong on an increasing number of other things.

It does make your head spin...without vomiting pea soup. However, with my nausea increasing with the president, my eventual expectoration may indeed be the same color and consistency.

Quote from: stephendare on April 30, 2008, 03:23:43 PM
http://www.youtube.com/v/SGGbx-MvxC8

Isnt that the crazy Greek woman who used to be a "conservative" Republican and who was married to a gay Senate candidate in California who then switched sides when she realized she could make more money off of guilty billionaire limousine liberals?  I am not sure I would use her as my guiding light.   :D

BTW, this thread should be moved to the National Politics section.

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 30, 2008, 03:47:39 PM
BTW, this thread should be moved to the National Politics section.

Quote from: Charleston native on April 23, 2008, 09:02:06 AM
Stephen, I think the major quandary, that I find myself in (I can't speak for River, though I'm sure he may feel similarly), is supporting someone who was right on a few things, but he has been terribly inept in execution of plans and has definitely been wrong on an increasing number of other things.

See, everyone is occasionally right about something. I'll get a good man right on it.

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 30, 2008, 03:47:04 PM

Isnt that the crazy Greek woman who used to be a "conservative" Republican and who was married to a gay Senate candidate in California who then switched sides when she realized she could make more money off of guilty billionaire limousine liberals?  I am not sure I would use her as my guiding light.   :D

Translation: I don't agree with her, and besides she has a ferrin' accent, so she's crazy and stupid.

Quote from: Midway on April 30, 2008, 03:49:03 PM
See, everyone is occasionally right about something. I'll get a good man right on it.

Indeed, a broken clock is correct twice a day.

Quote from: Midway on April 30, 2008, 03:54:56 PM

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 30, 2008, 03:47:04 PM

Isnt that the crazy Greek woman who used to be a "conservative" Republican and who was married to a gay Senate candidate in California who then switched sides when she realized she could make more money off of guilty billionaire limousine liberals?  I am not sure I would use her as my guiding light.   :D

Translation: I don't agree with her, and besides she has a ferrin' accent, so she's crazy and stupid.

If you dont think her life story is bizarre, you havent been paying attention.  Nice attempt to "translate" though.   ;)

It takes all kinds.   :)

Certainly, if prices continued to go up it would cause dislocations but I expect them to come down.  Indeed, they are already declining significantly:

QuoteOil Falls as Dollar Gain Causes Investors to Sell Commodities

By Christian Schmollinger

May 2 (Bloomberg) -- Crude oil fell for a fourth day as the dollar rose limiting investment demand for commodities and easing inflation concerns, and as output in Nigeria, Africa's largest producer, resumed after a strike.

Oil has declined 6.6 percent from a record near $120 a barrel as the U.S. dollar index, a measure of six currencies, is near a seven-week high. Gold has plunged 18 percent from its all-time high of $1,032.70 an ounce on March 17, erasing most of this year's gains. Exxon Mobil Corp. workers in Nigeria, the fifth-largest exporter to the U.S., ended their strike yesterday.

``The demand for investing in commodities as a hedge for U.S. dollar weakness has faded,'' said David Moore, a commodity strategist at Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd. in Sydney. ``Several unexpected supply disruptions are being resolved so that's taken some of the immediate tension out of the market.''

Crude oil for June delivery fell as much as 67 cents, or 0.6 percent, to $111.85 a barrel in after-hours electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. It was at $111.91 a barrel at 11:09 a.m. Singapore time. Futures, which have gained 76 percent from a year ago, touched $119.93 on April 28.

The dollar traded at $1.5465 per euro at 11 a.m. in Singapore from $1.5474 yesterday, when it touched $1.5431, the highest since March 25. The U.S. currency headed for its first back-to-back weekly gain this year against the euro on speculation the Federal Reserve will stop cutting borrowing costs.

``Worries about the financial market turmoil and even an economic slowdown seems to be softening, so that's why people are selling gold,'' said Tetsu Emori, fund manager at Astmax Ltd. in Tokyo. ``They are moving their money to financial markets and that's why the commodities have dropped sharply.''

Brent, Gold

Brent crude oil for June settlement declined as much as 59 cents, or 0.5 percent, to $109.91 a barrel on London's ICE Futures Europe exchange. It was at $110.15 at 10:51 a.m. Singapore time. The contract dropped 86 cents, or 0.8 percent, to $110.50 yesterday, the lowest close since April 14. It reached a record $117.56 on April 25.

Gold fell below $850 an ounce yesterday for the first time since Jan. 2 to as low as $847.93 an ounce. Bullion for immediate delivery was down 0.3 percent at $850.31 an ounce at 9:02 a.m. in Singapore. Silver was unchanged at $16.19 an ounce.

The falling dollar and higher world demand for raw materials have led to records this year for commodities including gold, corn, soybeans and rice. The UBS Bloomberg Constant Maturity Commodity Index, which tracks 26 raw materials, fell 2 percent to 1450.805 yesterday. The index is up 29 percent from a year ago.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a9sRCEZonPAQ&refer=home

You know this post from your linked site is just too funny:

QuoteReminds me of Mr. Burns at the Post Office:

"Yes, I'd like to send this letter to the Prussian consulate in Siam by aeromail. Am I too late for the 4:30 autogyro?"

;D ;D


And about all the prices coming down, better look at the next bloomberg article, which I have been so kind as to post on this very site at:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,2187.0.html

And thanks for posting, because I forgot all about this thread, being busy listening to River solve global warming and all.

This is the perfect home for all of those screamingly funny Bush videos.

IMO, Carter was by far the worst president. The Oil crisis, the joke that was the Camp David Accords, and the Iran hostage affair made the US a laughing stock. Carter was an idiot and still is an idiot who doesn't seem to understand foreign policy in this world. Many people complaign about Nixon, but at least he got us out of Vietnam and did well lin foreign relations with China. It's too early to rate George W's presidency because of all the emotion invovled by all parties. We should give it at least a decade before any accurate assessment of Bush's presidency. 

Well said, JaguarReign. Welcome to MetroJax, BTW!

Thanks for the warm welcome. 

is this early to mid march again???  i remember the "commodity bubble" was busting then as well. 

Dont you know Driven1?  Commodities can never go down in value.  Just like real estate.   ;)

Quote from: stephendare on April 30, 2008, 03:54:27 PM

QuoteIsnt that the crazy Greek woman who used to be a "conservative" Republican and who was married to a gay Senate candidate in California who then switched sides when she realized she could make more money off of guilty billionaire limousine liberals?  I am not sure I would use her as my guiding light. 

Arianna is hardly crazy, although she is Greek.  And she did used to be a 'conservative' republican, but she grew up.

Actually, it works the other way around.  Young people who don't know any better vote Democrat.   Then they get jobs, pay taxes, get married, have kids...and vote Republican.    The demographics of this election prove it.

Quote from: mikew on May 09, 2008, 05:36:53 PM

Quote from: stephendare on April 30, 2008, 03:54:27 PM

QuoteIsnt that the crazy Greek woman who used to be a "conservative" Republican and who was married to a gay Senate candidate in California who then switched sides when she realized she could make more money off of guilty billionaire limousine liberals?  I am not sure I would use her as my guiding light. 

Arianna is hardly crazy, although she is Greek.  And she did used to be a 'conservative' republican, but she grew up.

Actually, it works the other way around.  Young people who don't know any better vote Democrat.   Then they get jobs, pay taxes, get married, have kids...and vote Republican.    The demographics of this election prove it.

Surveys clearly show this.

Quote from: stephendare on May 23, 2008, 01:06:14 AM
Hmm. I dont know.  I havent had a lot of jobs, but the taxes have been pretty high.  Got married divorced, then had kids.   I voted Republican most of my life, but I will proudly be voting democrat this election.

You have biological children, Stephen?