The Obamanation

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

And another view.

There are folks out there who... aren't as good at journalism as Jayson Blair.

A simplistic view for ideological simpletons who dont understand or are unwilling to acknowledge the concept that work provides value well above and beyond just dividing dollars spent by jobs created.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Redux

A simplistic view for ideological simpletons who dont understand or are unwilling to acknowledge the concept that work provides value well above and beyond just dividing dollars spent by jobs created.

One ends up just wondering why the 250K per capita shouldn't simply be transferred to each of those capita -- if, say, you wanted to buy some votes.

And Redux, how does it not leave you vulnerable to being charged a simpleton yourself when you leave out the apostrophe? Tw's appalling copyediting is already enough for one site without additions from you.

No, simplistic is expecting the public sector to increase the wealth or to be a jobs agency. That simply never happens -- government is part of the administrative overhead, not the wealth engine. Economists understand this, Democrats presently ignore it. Dumb.

P.S.: Anyone else think Mister Jobless in the pic looks an awful lot like a rear view of Michael Moore? UG

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

....
No, simplistic is expecting the public sector to increase the wealth or to be a jobs agency. That simply never happens -- government is part of the administrative overhead, not the wealth engine. Economists understand this, Democrats presently ignore it. Dumb....

Rewriting history again, UG?

It was Democratic programs from the New Deal and labor legislation of the 30s that ended the depression; the post-WWII programs that invested in education, built the nation's current infrastructure, underwrote the infant technology and bio-med industries, funded the aerospace industry; the civil rights legislation of the 60s that was instrumental in the creation of a Black middle class.....all of which not only created more personal wealth, but fueled the economic engine of which you speak.

Economists understood this.

Republicans and Libertarians are still in denial.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Rewriting history again, UG?

It was Democratic programs .......the civil rights legislation of the 60s that was instrumental in the creation of a Black middle class.....all of which not only created more personal wealth, but fueled the economic engine of which you speak.

Rewriting history again, Redux?

A common attempt by Demoncrats to rewrite history while they ignore the facts of the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's:

(To long to post here)

http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/democratrecord.html

snip

A little known fact of history involves the heavy opposition to the civil rights movement by several prominent Democrats. Similar historical neglect is given to the important role Republicans played in supporting the civil rights movement. A calculation of 26 major civil rights votes from 1933 through the 1960's civil rights era shows that Republicans favored civil rights in approximately 96% of the votes, whereas the Democrats opposed them in 80% of the votes! These facts are often intentionally overlooked by the left wing Democrats for obvious reasons. In some cases, the Democrats have told flat out lies about their shameful record during the civil rights movement.

Democrat Senators organized the record Senate filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Included among the organizers were several prominent and well known liberal Democrat standard bearers including:
- Robert Byrd, current senator from West Virginia
- J. William Fulbright, Arkansas senator and political mentor of Bill Clinton
- Albert Gore Sr., Tennessee senator, father and political mentor of Al Gore. Gore Jr. has been known to lie about his father's opposition to the Civil Rights Act.
- Sam Ervin, North Carolina senator of Watergate hearings fame
- Richard Russell, famed Georgia senator and later President Pro Tempore

The complete list of the 21 Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes Senators:

- Hill and Sparkman of Alabama
- Fulbright and McClellan of Arkansas
- Holland and Smathers of Florida
- Russell and Talmadge of Georgia
- Ellender and Long of Louisiana
- Eastland and Stennis of Mississippi
- Ervin and Jordan of North Carolina
- Johnston and Thurmond of South Carolina
- Gore Sr. and Walters of Tennessee
- H. Byrd and Robertson of Virginia
- R. Byrd of West Virginia

Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Act was substantial enough to literally split the party in two. A whopping 40% of the House Democrats VOTED AGAINST the Civil Rights Act, while 80% of Republicans SUPPORTED it. Republican support in the Senate was even higher. Similar trends occurred with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was supported by 82% of House Republicans and 94% of Senate Republicans. The same Democrat standard bearers took their normal racists stances, this time with Senator Fulbright leading the opposition effort.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Rewriting history again, Redux?

A common attempt by Demoncrats to rewrite history while they ignore the facts of the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's:

(To long to post here)

http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/democratrecord.html

snip

I agree the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had bi-partisan support, with majorities of both parties supporting the legislation, and Southern Democrats voting against it.

However, it would never have happened w/o a Democrat (LBJ) in the White House.

Eisenhower had the opportunity to lead such an initiative and chose not to do so and did little or nothing to address the issue. This was after Truman desegregated the military, the first step towards more comprehensive civil rights.

I would add that with the most recent reauthorization of the act in 1990, every vote against it was Republican.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

I agree the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had bi-partisan support, with majorities of both parties supporting the legislation, and Southern Democrats voting against it.

However, it would never have happened w/o a Democrat (LBJ) in the White House.

Eisenhower had the opportunity to lead such an initiative and chose not to do so.

I would add that with the most recent reauthorization of the act in 1990, every vote against it was Republican.

All I am pointing out is that you can't rewrite history and you should be careful to draw to many comparisons between the Democratic party of old and the Democratic party of the last two decades.

FDR was a racist. The list of racist Dems is long and solid.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

...FDR was a racist. The list of racist Dems is long and solid.

But not a long and solid as the 'pubics. Their's is as long and solid as the turd I dump after a 3 day food fest without fiber.