Right Wing Boogy!

Um... Liberals freed the slaves? And I thought Abe Lincoln was a Rebuplican.

Yeah, well besides that...

The Republican Party of Lincoln is NOT the Republican Party of Bush. Times change.

Also remember that Strom Thurmond was a Democrat at one point before he and other Southern Democrats turned into ultra racist Dixiecrats.

The Republican party at the time was quite liberal.... and later allied with the Progressive party. The raging right wing conservativism is a 20th century change.

If I remember correctly. Abe Lincoln wasn't against slavery, he freed the slaves to stop the Civil War. If it would have taken all blacks to be slaves to stop the war, he would have done that.

Ok, something to clarify here: the Emancipation Proclimation DID NOT FREE ANYONE AT ALL. If a president could make law by proclimation, he/she would be a king.

True, but it's pretty doubtful the 14th Amendment would have passed without Presidential support, and definitely wouldn't have passed without the support of his party.

it was the republicans that passed the civil rights bill too you know heh.

modern republicans are much closer to classic liberalism much like the founding fathers were then modern liberals are.
with time things change and the terms liberal and conservative mean different things.

darwin is correct though the emancipation proclimation did not free the slaves.
the civil war was not fought over slavery specifically.

infact slavery remained legal in the northern states for a few years after the civil war was over,while the southern states were made to give up their slaves.




EDIT:BTW despite what that cartoon says the economy IS fine,GDP is raising its fastest since 1984 i believe it was,and the stock market is near pre 9/11 levels.

the jobs are always the last thing to recover,but even then the jobs are starting to come back aswell.

Excuse me?

The modern republican party is so far off both classical liberalism AND classical conservativism it's not even funny.... and they bear NO resemblance to the Founders.

And any idiot that thinks you can have an economic recovery without creating jobs shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the economy. The economy is inching its way out of the tailspin the Bush administration's policies have put it in. (Of course highlighting this simply ignores why it's so low to begin with.....)

The economy is fine if you believe everything you hear. Listen harder.

Administration Claims of Better Economy Don't Follow the Numbers

Bush Twice Tries to Mislead America About the Economy in 24 Hours

Oh, and check this while you're watching videos

and btw the president has VERY little to nothing to do with the economy in general anyway lol.

clinton had nothing to do with the economic boom during his term,just as bush has nothing to do with the decline or rise of the economy during his term.

corwin its an economic fact that jobs are the trailing factor,businesses only rehire when they are confident they need the help and can support it with more business.

the jobs always return aftewards,as for right now we have the GDP growing at an amazing rate,it grew so fast most economists had revise they expected numbers over and over again cause they didnt expect it to grow so fast.

as for republicans,i didnt say they were close to the founding fathers only that they are much closer then the current democrats are.

the republicans are more for the 2nd amendment,they are against socialist programs,and atleast moreso then the dems,against big government.

aswell they are more against high taxes,the founding fathers if alive today would be busy planning another revolution even if only because of the taxes we have today.

the libertarians are infact the closest to the founding fathers.

as of right now both the democrats AND republicans suck ass,it comes down to picking the lesser of two evils really,and i personally believe the republican party is the lesser of two evils at the moment.

Actually not true... a fairly common misconception, made more common by the fact that the Republicans repeat it at every opportunity in order to denigrate Clinton and deify Reagan. (The general tactic is to claim that the effects of economic policies aren't actually felt until years after the fact.... and so the Clinton boom years were actually Reagan's doing.... an argument generally considered to be bogus, largely because said Republicans can't actually explain WHY this should be true, but there it is.)

While the president doesn't have some magic wand to make the economy better or worse, the president DOES set policy from the executive branch. This means that proposals for spending that fall under that branch, (such as the defense department and department of justice...) are largely set by the president and his advisors. Additionally, the president is, by nature of his position, one of the premire voices of his party.... if not the premire one. Normally, this isn't all that much of a problem. Americans frequently instinctively limit the power of either party by voting one into the White House and giving the other a majority in Congress. (This isn't anything official.... it's just a common trend of the american electorate.) President Bush can't actually pass tax cuts. However, with the Republican majority currently in Congress, it's laughable to suggest that his pet ideological project wouldn't be passed. This has been the major effect he's had on the economy.... along with pumping tens of billions of dollars into a war that could be called 'extremely dubious' if one was feeling generous.

As has been posted, our current economic 'recovery' is largely a result of wishful thinking and cooking the numbers. The Republicans need for people to think that this idiocy is actually working, so they push the propaganda line. They did it with Reagan as well. (Although the situation was less extreme in that case.... something that I never thought I'd hear myself saying before Bush II.)

ok so i guess you're saying we can blame clinton then?

the downturn started in his last few years lol.


really the economic situation we've had has had very little to do with the policies that have een used by either clinton or bush,i dont blame bush for the economy and i dont consider it his doing that the economy is skyrocketing.

clinton got lucky,just think,when he came into office there practically was no such thing as the internet,when he left office it the internet was a huge multi billion dollar global communications tool connected to all parts of the economy.

none of that was there before,so many millionares were created and millions of jobs as well.
the computer industry grew many many times over aswell to the massive industry it is today.

he was lucky,but the .com boost create an artificial stock bubble and when things started slwoing down investors dumped their high risk stock sending the entire IT industry crashign down.

then comes september 11 which further plunged the economy towards recession.

now after a few years its recovering,and very strongly too.

besides,if you are gonna claim the president is at fault then bush still is beter off then clinton.
at the end of clinton's first term unemployment was higher then it ever was under bush.

so to be fair you'd have to wait another 4 years to compare





i would disagree,and besides results are more important then motives,and the results have been fantastic.

plus government spending doesnt have much of an impact on our consmer driven economy.

Talk to us again when you've taken economics and history courses above the ninth grade level. Throw in some spelling and grammar while you're at it.

And on your last point.... 'The ends justify the means?' Do you really want to be endorsing this?

to a certain degree yes i do.

like i said though i (and many others) agree with how we handled the war,so i agree with both the means and the end heh.

Your homework is to find a situation where 'the ends justify the means' hasn't led to atrocities.

We'll wait. (And it'll be a very long time.)

thats why i said "to a certain degree".

if atrocities are involved then no the end has not justified the means,yet even then there are exceptions.

you want an example?

the a-bombs dropped on japan.

out of the entire war,those 2 bombs saved more lives then anything else,thats right SAVED.

an invasion of japan wouldve cost us around 1 million soldiers it was estimated,and the japanese deaths wouldve numbered another few million.

instead 100,000+ people were killed,a small number in the giant sad tragedy that is wwII.
not to mention the possible millions of people and who knows how many more years of war that wouldve happened had the soviets moved on europe,and many believe it was the A-bomb that stopped them,they knew weh ad the power and they didnt want to fight that and they aswel saw that no one could win in a nuclear war.

had no bombs been dropped its very likely the sovietswouldnt have hesitated to drop their own.

so in this situation the means justified the end.

also i think you ook my statement somewaht wrong,i said the end is more important then the INTENT not means.

i would never support something where the means to get there requires atrocities and such.

Hiroshima was an unjustified atrocity. A civilian target was picked for shock value. I don't disagree that the bomb needed to be dropped, but I won't justify picking a noncom city to drop it on.

It was a war, bombs get dropped in war. That part I don't have a problem with. But there were military targets available, and one of them should have been hit instead of a city. I don't consider it to have been justified.

actually as sad as it is a city IS considered a military target.

the very concept of the human city is based around mutual defense,and that holds true to modern society aswell.

we no longer do that...atleast the US doesnt anymore,but at that time the best way to win a war was to bomb the enemy's cities into submission.

those cities were NOT just random cities picked for no apparent reason.
both cities had large manufacturing sectors which were feeding the japanese war machine.

both cities were viable and crucial targets.

besides,the bombs were NOT all that destructive when compared to regular bombing runs.
MILLIONS of people died to conventional bombing,sometimes MORE in 1 attack then the atom bomb caused.

also think about this one FACT:more CIVILIANS died to samurai swords in wwII then to atom bombs.

atleast we didnt target civilians purposefully and even just for entertainment like the japanese did.
the japanese of wwII were the most evil people possibly ever on the face of this planet,they were far worse then the nazis even when it came to their brutality and treatment of POW's.