The Obamanation

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.

[TheMercenary]

Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Franklin Roosevelt, the long time hero and standard bearer of the Democrat Party, headed up and implemented one of the most horrible racist policies of the 20th Century – the Japanese Internment Camps during World War II. Roosevelt unilaterally and knowingly enacted Japanese Internment through the use of presidential Executive Orders 9066 and 9102 during the early years of the war. These orders single-handedly led to the imprisonment of an estimated 120,000 law abiding Americans of Japanese ancestry, the overwhelming majority of them natural born second and third generation American citizens. Countless innocents lost their property, fortunes, and, in the case of an unfortunate few, even their lives as a result of Roosevelt's internment camps, camps that have been accurately described as America's concentration camps. Perhaps most telling about the racist nature of Roosevelt's order was his clearly expressed intention to apply it almost entirely to Japanese Americans, even though America was also at war with Germany and Italy. In 1943, Roosevelt wrote regarding concerns of German and Italian Americans that they t0o would share in the fate of the interned Japanese Americans, noting that "no collective evacuation of German and Italian aliens is contemplated at this time." Despite this assertion, Roosevelt did exhibit his personal fears about Italian and German Americans, and in his typical racist form he used an ethnic stereotype to make his point. Expressing about his position on German and Italian Americans during World War II, Roosevelt stated “I don’t care so much about the Italians, they are a lot of opera singers, but the Germans are different. They may be dangerous.”

Roosevelt also appointed two notorious segregationists to the United States Supreme Court. Roosevelt appointed South Carolina segregationist Democrat Jimmy Byrnes to the court. Roosevelt later made Byrnes a top advisor, where the segregationist earned the nickname “assistant president.” Byrnes was Roosevelt’s second choice behind Harry Truman for the VP nod in his 1944 reelection bid. Roosevelt also appointed segregationist Democrat Senator Hugo Black of Alabama to the court. Black was a former member of the Ku Klux Klan with a notorious record of racism himself.

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

[TheMercenary]

EDITORIAL

Stimulus dishonesty
Job numbers keep proving to be exaggerated

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 at 12:43 a.m.

First it was The Associated Press refuting the Obama administration’s claims for jobs saved or created nationwide by February’s $787 billion economic stimulus measure. Then it was The Sacramento Bee refuting the claims that state agencies had made for California. Then it was the Chicago Tribune refuting the claims that state agencies had made for Illinois.

The errors were not of a minor or technical nature. They were egregious.

AP reported that “some jobs credited to the stimulus program were counted two, three, four or even more times.” The Bee reported that California State University said “the $268.5 million it received in stimulus funding through October allowed it to retain 26,156 employees” – more than half its statewide work force. The Tribune reported that Illinois education officials grossly inflated job-saved numbers, sometimes saying school districts had saved more jobs than their total number of employees.

This is a scandal and should be treated as such. It’s not government as usual. Instead, it appears to reflect a decision to distort government data collection to support explicitly political agendas.

With U.S. unemployment now topping 10 percent, the Obama administration is struggling more than ever to fashion credible counterarguments to the assertion made by this editorial page and many pundits and economists that the massive stimulus measure was a poorly thought-out pork fest that wouldn’t work. What’s the easiest way to defend the stimulus? Make up claims about its glorious results.

Politics also appears to be driving state agencies in their willingness to prop up this bogus narrative. It helps them make the case that they should get even more borrowed money from the federal government that they never will have to repay.

continues:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...us-dishonesty/

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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

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

Maybe you should change your name to Scatvet.

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.

[Spexxvet]

1933 through the 1960's

And then the south went repubican, and the rolls reversed. Now they oppose affirmative action and they categorize welfare recipients as "welfare queens".

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 a minority of Democrats opposed them in 80% of the votes.

Fixed that for you.

Every civil rights bill since the 30s has had the support of the majority of Democrats, and through the 60s, a majority of Republicans as well.

Since the late 60s, it is a completely different picture.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Fixed that for you.

Every civil rights bill since the 30s has had the support of the minority of Democrats, and through the 60s, a majority of Republicans as well.

Since the late 60s, it is a completely different picture.

No you didn't fix anything. You can't rewrite history.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

No you didn't fix anything. You can't rewrite history.

Every civil rights bill has been introduced by a Democrat and has had the support of a majority of Democrats.

What part of that don't you understand?

[TheMercenary]

History shows that Democrats fought to expand slavery, were the source of the KKK, fought to prevent freedom of slaves as well as fought the passage of the 13th Amendment and 15th Amendment.

They fought against the civil rights laws of the 1860's, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks.

The KKK became the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party to lynch and terrorize Republicans-black and white. Democrats passed those discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws and fought every piece of civil rights legislation from the 1860’s to the 1960’s. Shamefully, Democrats fought against anti-lynching laws, and when the Democrats regained control of Congress in 1892, they passed the Repeal Act of 1894 that overturned civil right laws enacted by Republicans.

Strange how history is hard to change....

Every civil rights bill since the 30s has had the support of the minority of Democrats

You can change the words...you can't change the numbers....Democrats introduced and 2/3 of Democrats in Congress supported the first civil rights act.

The 1964 act:

153 Democrats (63%) for and 91 against in the House.....7 southern Democrats voted for it and zero southern Republicans voted for it.....94% of northern Democrats voted for it as opposed to 85% of northern Republicans.

46 Democrats (69%) for and 21 against in the Senate....1 southern Democrat voted for it and zero southern Republicans voted for it....98% of northern Democrats voted for it as opposed to 84% of northern Republicans.

Majority of Democrats in both cases.

What part of 2/3 in your fuzzy math does not equal a majority?

History shows that Democrats fought to expand slavery,....

And history shows that all the southern framers of the Constitution were slave-owners.

So what? Both parties have checkered pasts. Do you really believe the Republican party of today resembles the Republican party of Lincoln?

Your straw man has little meaning in terms of 20th century movements that helped establish the Black middle class.

[TheMercenary]

Some pretty interesting reading about the claims of both parties concerning civil rights starting on page 454.

http://books.google.com/books?id=NFw...age&q=&f=false