# W&theMarines



## Hitch

https://www.tpnn.com/2014/06/16/video-two-presidents-two-very-different-reactions/


----------



## SG_67

Barrack Obama is a mediocre president and a mediocre intellect at best. 

He's not exactly an inspiring figure and I think the reaction he received says it all. You salute and stand there because it's the least you're supposed to do.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Sorry, but what a bunch of manure.

If you respect the military, you don't send troops into harm's way for no reason, which is exactly what Bush did in Iraq (and the record shows that Obama publicly opposed the war when it was not politically expedient to do so even as Bush, with an assist from Judith Miller, conned Congress and everyone fell over themselves in a dash for Baghdad). If you respect the military, you don't duck Vietnam by using connections to get into the national guard (we'll skip the controversy over whether he went AWOL).

I go by what people do, not by what they say, and Bush's actions show that he has as much respect for the military as I do for four-inch-wide polyester ties. No matter what he said, he used troops as cannon fodder in a pointless war that could not be won because there was never a definition of "victory."

If I were in the military, I would way rather be alive than dead, and there are a whole bunch of dead people who'd be alive today if Bush had never been commander in chief. Now, you can fixate on a lot of hoo-ha BS and group think if you like, but Bush was a war monger, and war mongers, by definition, don't respect the military for the reasons that the military should be respected. Even worse, by virtue of him ducking Vietnam, he's a hypocritical war monger. I don't give a hoot about salutes. I care about whether the commander in chief exercises good judgment and by that measure, Bush couldn't hold Obama's canteen.

Hitch, you're not a dumb guy, and so I'm honestly surprised that you are so into this Tea Party propaganda, and that's exactly what it is. The audio didn't work when I watched this clip, but I watched the video, and it is completely invalid to compare reactions from two completely different audiences at two completely different events. If it were the same audience at the same time, that might be one thing, but it is not. Troops may or may not like Bush more than Obama, but to reach that conclusion from this clip is, as I said at the beginning, manure.


----------



## Hitch

32rollandrock said:


> Sorry, but what a bunch of manure.
> 
> If you respect the military, you don't send troops into harm's way for no reason, which is exactly what Bush did in Iraq (and the record shows that Obama publicly opposed the war when it was not politically expedient to do so even as Bush,


 Of course when has it ever been stylish for for a liberal to oppose military action?


> so with an assist from Judith Miller, conned Congress and everyone fell over themselves in a dash for Baghdad). If you respect the military, you don't duck Vietnam by using connections to get into the national guard (we'll skip the controversy over whether he went AWOL).


 Cute tactic LOL reminds of one of those yippie little dogs


> I go by what people do, not by what they say, and Bush's actions show that he has as much respect for the military as I do for four-inch-wide polyester ties. No matter what he said, he used troops as cannon fodder in a pointless war that could not be won because there was never a definition of "victory."
> 
> If I were in the military, I would way rather be alive than dead, and there are a whole bunch of dead people who'd be alive today if Bush had never been commander in chief. Now, you can fixate on a lot of hoo-ha BS and group think if you like, but Bush was a war monger, and war mongers, by definition, don't respect the military for the reasons that the military should be respected. Even worse, by virtue of him ducking Vietnam, he's a hypocritical war monger. I don't give a hoot about salutes. I care about whether the commander in chief exercises good judgment and by that measure, Bush couldn't hold Obama's canteen.
> 
> Hitch, you're not a dumb guy, and so I'm honestly surprised that you are so into this Tea Party propaganda, and that's exactly what it is. The audio didn't work when I watched this clip, but I watched the video, and it is completely invalid to compare reactions from two completely different audiences at two completely different events. If it were the same audience at the same time, that might be one thing, but it is not. Troops may or may not like Bush more than Obama, but to reach that conclusion from this clip is, as I said at the beginning, manure.


 I wonder who told you to reach a conclusion from this clip?

But its quite plain who the Marines prefer. In fact every Marine I know. Well now that I think of it every on I know in or retired from the military, echos the view shown by these Marines. It's great that you're home safe because you're obviously far more intelligent than those dumb jar heads, maybe you should go to the nearest Marine base and educate them. I have no doubt you could set them all straight.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Hitch said:


> Of course when has it ever been stylish for for a liberal to oppose military action? Cute tactic LOL reminds of one of those yippie little dogs I wonder who told you to reach a conclusion from this clip?
> 
> But its quite plain who the Marines prefer. In fact every Marine I know. Well now that I think of it every on I know in or retired from the military, echos the view shown by these Marines. It's great that you're home safe because you're obviously far more intelligent than those dumb jar heads, maybe you should go to the nearest Marine base and educate them. I have no doubt you could set them all straight.


First off, I wouldn't judge quality in politicians by who Marines prefer. That said, you must know some pretty ignorant Marines. And they could have been home, safe, as well--there was certainly no reason for them to be in Iraq.

Sorry, but Bush really, truly was that bad. You're a smart guy. Why can't you just admit the truth: Bush was an awful president who started a senseless war where no American interests were at stake and a lot of people died for no reason. That's the truth. Do you dispute that?


----------



## gaseousclay

32rollandrock said:


> First off, I wouldn't judge quality in politicians by who Marines prefer. That said, you must know some pretty ignorant Marines. And they could have been home, safe, as well--there was certainly no reason for them to be in Iraq.
> 
> Sorry, but Bush really, truly was that bad. You're a smart guy. Why can't you just admit the truth: Bush was an awful president who started a senseless war where no American interests were at stake and a lot of people died for no reason. That's the truth. Do you dispute that?


Honestly, 32, I don't know why you continue to feed the forum troll when all he seems to do is bait people into pointless us vs them arguments. You MUST be a Liberal if you disagree with his worldview.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hitch

32rollandrock said:


> First off, I wouldn't judge quality in politicians by who Marines prefer. That said, you must know some pretty ignorant Marines. And they could have been home, safe, as well--there was certainly no reason for them to be in Iraq.


 All the more reason they really need you to straighten them out, you owe it as a public service


> Sorry, but Bush really, truly was that bad. You're a smart guy. Why can't you just admit the truth: Bush was an awful president who started a senseless war where no American interests were at stake and a lot of people died for no reason. That's the truth. Do you dispute that?


 Like I said , take your soap box and start you very own thread and you can whine and rant all you like. And dont ever complain about anyone else as kneejerker, you're tops on that score.


----------



## MaxBuck

32rollandrock said:


> ... Bush really, truly was that bad. ... Bush was an awful president who started a senseless war where no American interests were at stake and a lot of people died for no reason. That's the truth. Do you dispute that?


Whether or not any American disputes this comment, from everything I've heard from folks from other countries, it's the way Bush is regarded pretty much everywhere outside our borders -- as a dolt who recklessly involved us in pointless armed conflicts.

Whether that means anything to you depends on where you stand on the idea that we should care what the rest of the world thinks of us. There's a broad spectrum of opinion on that one.


----------



## Hitch

gaseousclay said:


> Honestly, 32, I don't know why you continue to feed the forum troll when all he seems to do is bait people into pointless us vs them arguments. You MUST be a Liberal if you disagree with his worldview.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


 From under the bridge; ALL my threads come complete with my handle. You are more than welcome to stay away, pissant.


----------



## Hitch

I must admit a certain interest comes from a video that is just a few minutes long and shows Marines in uniform giving greater applause to Bush as compared to Obama. Some of you find that quite troubling.


----------



## Hitch

MaxBuck said:


> Whether or not any American disputes this comment, from everything I've heard from folks from other countries, it's the way Bush is regarded pretty much everywhere outside our borders -- as a dolt who recklessly involved us in pointless armed conflicts.
> 
> Whether that means anything to you depends on where you stand on the idea that we should care what the rest of the world thinks of us. There's a broad spectrum of opinion on that one.


 What is really bad is how Bush sidestepped Congress and the UN.


----------



## 32rollandrock

gaseousclay said:


> Honestly, 32, I don't know why you continue to feed the forum troll when all he seems to do is bait people into pointless us vs them arguments. You MUST be a Liberal if you disagree with his worldview.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You're right, of course.

"How Can 59,054,087 People Be So Dumb?" I loved that headline. I mourned the day that it ran. That, pretty much, was the day I lost faith in America and turned into a true cynic.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> You're right, of course.
> 
> "How Can 59,054,087 People Be So Dumb?" I loved that headline. I mourned the day that it ran. That, pretty much, was the day I lost faith in America and turned into a true cynic.


Honestly, how can you be some egotistical as to say someone who voted for the guy you didn't like is dumb? I consider every person who has ever run for president - even those that I totally disagree with politically - to be worthy of only the utmost respect for their willingness to take on one of the most difficult jobs there is.

Almost every presidential election we have ever had still has at least 40% or so voting for the loser. Of course, we don't elect our president by popular vote, but that is a whole different discussion.


----------



## 32rollandrock

vpkozel said:


> Honestly, how can you be some egotistical as to say someone who voted for the guy you didn't like is dumb? I consider every person who has ever run for president - even those that I totally disagree with politically - to be worthy of only the utmost respect for their willingness to take on one of the most difficult jobs there is.
> 
> Almost every presidential election we have ever had still has at least 40% or so voting for the loser. Of course, we don't elect our president by popular vote, but that is a whole different discussion.


I didn't write that headline, the Daily Mirror in England did. And they were right. Anyone who voted to reelect Bush, including my wife, has blood on their hands--I firmly believe that. My wife isn't stupid, but she is so aligned with the Republican Party that she could never vote for a Democrat. Some people are that way.

My employer could never vote for a Republican no matter what. This spring, he complained that there was nothing/no one to vote for in the primary. There was, in fact, a hotly contested Republican primary for sheriff, an office that I don't believe should be elective because it is too important to put in the hands of voters. There were no Democratic races that mattered. My employer had a strong preference for which Republican candidate for sheriff should advance, and it will be impossible for a Democrat to win come fall unless someone has pictures of the Republican in a compromising situation with a goat AND a gerbil, and even then. Nonetheless, my employer filled out a Democratic ballot that meant nothing instead of taking a Republican ballot so that his vote might make a difference. He's not dumb, either. But when it comes to elections/politics in this country, Charles Manson had it right: No sense makes sense.

As I say, the 2004 presidential election made me a complete cynic. It doesn't matter what these clowns say or do. The fate of our country is, utterly and completely, in the hands of spin doctors and Nate Silvers for hire. People like Hitch who buy the Tea Party line are just buying a line, same as Democrats buy lines and mainstream Republicans buy lines. Consider this:

We are fortunate to be alive at this moment in history. Never before has our nation enjoyed, at once, so much prosperity and social progress with so little internal crisis and so few external threats. Never before have we had such a blessed opportunity -- and, therefore, such a profound obligation -- to build the more perfect union of our founders' dreams.
We begin the new century with over 20 million new jobs; the fastest economic growth in more than 30 years; the lowest unemployment rates in 30 years; the lowest poverty rates in 20 years; the lowest African American and Hispanic unemployment rates on record; the first back-to-back budget surpluses in 42 years. And next month, America will achieve the longest period of economic growth in our entire history.

We know who said that, and yet he remains villified, even though what he said is the truth--he didn't see 9/11 coming, granted, but neither did his successor. We have squandered every bit of what we had going for us 14 years ago. Every bit of it. If only Monica was again the most serious crisis in Washington...


----------



## vpkozel

I find it interesting that you would base your cynicism on the different groups "buying lines" while you are repeating one of those lines as it relates to Clinton and Lewinsky.

The bottom line is that in each thing you referenced - the war in Iraq, the private lawsuit that led to the deposition of Clinton (on after being forced to do so by an appellate judge and the USSC), to his lying under oath, to his impeachment by the House and acquittal by the Senate, to the fact that he only submitted one balanced budget in his 8 years - most all of what you say is the party line and very little of it is rooted in fact. And in each of those cases, the system worked precisely as designed, with checks and balances at each step. 

As the saying goes, you are certainly entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

And I am guessing that if you loved the headline but disagreed with it, you probably would have mentioned that important piece of information.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Oh, go you-know-what yourself. That's the thing about people like you: You just can't stand it when confronted with the truth. You can't refute a single thing that he said in his last state of the union address that I have quoted--not a single freakin' thing. And so you resort to a bunch of knee-jerk accusations. I never mentioned the lawsuit--go check--yet you say that I did. Read what I said, then read your response. Go ahead, I'll wait.

See what the issue is here? You and your ilk can't intelligently discuss a single damn thing about government or politics because you (and Hitch) are idealogues, and I know it's foolish to address an idealogue, but so be it. Should Clinton have lied under oath? Of course not. What he should have done is refused to have answered the question, even though that went against the rules of depositions--I understand that. What he should have done is said "FU, if you want to press the issue, go ahead--what you're doing here is obscene, politically motivated and you should be ashamed of the lengths to which you are going in the interest of selfish gain." That's what he should have done--he should have stated his piece with a court reporter present, made his case in no uncertain terms about the ugliness inherent in that lawsuit that was rooted not in what he was accused of doing, but what political points could be scored based on nothing that had anything to do with public policy. He should have made his case, without lying, and then walked out of the room, dared a judge to do something about it and let the American public be his jury. He did not do that, and so--yippee, you're right about one thing. But what does that have to do with the proverbial price of rice in China? And remember, I didn't bring the lawsuit up, you did.

Why did you do that?

The reason why is, you can't refute a single thing that I said--not a single freakin' thing. You're right that no one is entitled to their facts, but show me where my facts are wrong. Don't go all Tea Party and dittohead, address the issues I have presented without straying into the impeachment debacle. Yes, I mentioned Monica, but only in passing--go ahead, read what I wrote, I can wait--and only to illustrate the difference between where we were then and where we are today. And you use it as a wedge, just like you were trained. As Reagan (barf) said: Are you better off today than you were four years ago? Were we better off under Bush than we were under Clinton--or under Obama, for that matter. Are we? Isn't that the bottom line?

I think that you and people who think like you and say the things that you say are scared. I think that you are scared because you know that your days of fooling people the way they have been fooled in the past are numbered. I'm a cynic, yes, but the kind of "stuff" that spews from your mouth and the mouths of people like Hitch can't possibly fly because it doesn't pass any kind of smell test. I'm as disdainful of D's as I am R's--I think Obama is, at best, a mediocre president, and that's at best. He's a liar and an obfuscator and a lot of other things but he's a damn sight better than his predecessor. It would go a long way if people like you and Hitch could admit that Bush was an awful president. That would give you a grain of credibility. But you cannot, and so you keep proving to be what you are: idealogues.



vpkozel said:


> I find it interesting that you would base your cynicism on the different groups "buying lines" while you are repeating one of those lines as it relates to Clinton and Lewinsky.
> 
> The bottom line is that in each thing you referenced - the war in Iraq, the private lawsuit that led to the deposition of Clinton (on after being forced to do so by an appellate judge and the USSC), to his lying under oath, to his impeachment by the House and acquittal by the Senate, to the fact that he only submitted one balanced budget in his 8 years - most all of what you say is the party line and very little of it is rooted in fact. And in each of those cases, the system worked precisely as designed, with checks and balances at each step.
> 
> As the saying goes, you are certainly entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
> 
> And I am guessing that if you loved the headline but disagreed with it, you probably would have mentioned that important piece of information.


----------



## Chouan

32rollandrock, don't argue with a fool. There's no point, and the more you use rational argument and reason, the less rational response you'll get. Don't waste your time.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> Oh, go you-know-what yourself. That's the thing about people like you: You just can't stand it when confronted with the truth. You can't refute a single thing that he said in his last state of the union address that I have quoted--not a single freakin' thing. And so you resort to a bunch of knee-jerk accusations. I never mentioned the lawsuit--go check--yet you say that I did. Read what I said, then read your response. Go ahead, I'll wait.
> 
> See what the issue is here? You and your ilk can't intelligently discuss a single damn thing about government or politics because you (and Hitch) are idealogues, and I know it's foolish to address an idealogue, but so be it. Should Clinton have lied under oath? Of course not. What he should have done is refused to have answered the question, even though that went against the rules of depositions--I understand that. What he should have done is said "FU, if you want to press the issue, go ahead--what you're doing here is obscene, politically motivated and you should be ashamed of the lengths to which you are going in the interest of selfish gain." That's what he should have done--he should have stated his piece with a court reporter present, made his case in no uncertain terms about the ugliness inherent in that lawsuit that was rooted not in what he was accused of doing, but what political points could be scored based on nothing that had anything to do with public policy. He should have made his case, without lying, and then walked out of the room, dared a judge to do something about it and let the American public be his jury. He did not do that, and so--yippee, you're right about one thing. But what does that have to do with the proverbial price of rice in China? And remember, I didn't bring the lawsuit up, you did.
> 
> Why did you do that?
> 
> The reason why is, you can't refute a single thing that I said--not a single freakin' thing. You're right that no one is entitled to their facts, but show me where my facts are wrong. Don't go all Tea Party and dittohead, address the issues I have presented without straying into the impeachment debacle. Yes, I mentioned Monica, but only in passing--go ahead, read what I wrote, I can wait--and only to illustrate the difference between where we were then and where we are today. And you use it as a wedge, just like you were trained. As Reagan (barf) said: Are you better off today than you were four years ago? Were we better off under Bush than we were under Clinton--or under Obama, for that matter. Are we? Isn't that the bottom line?
> 
> I think that you and people who think like you and say the things that you say are scared. I think that you are scared because you know that your days of fooling people the way they have been fooled in the past are numbered. I'm a cynic, yes, but the kind of "stuff" that spews from your mouth and the mouths of people like Hitch can't possibly fly because it doesn't pass any kind of smell test. I'm as disdainful of D's as I am R's--I think Obama is, at best, a mediocre president, and that's at best. He's a liar and an obfuscator and a lot of other things but he's a damn sight better than his predecessor. It would go a long way if people like you and Hitch could admit that Bush was an awful president. That would give you a grain of credibility. But you cannot, and so you keep proving to be what you are: idealogues.


Well, apparently I touched a nerve.

I also think it is funny that you resort to name calling as soon as someone calls you on your facts. I am going to be kind of busy today, so please do not take my lack of a response today as anything other than this will not be a priority for me and will obviously take time to get together.

As to what he said in the SOTU speech, at the time he gave it, the economy had indeed grown at an amazing rate, but that also lead to the tech bubble, the housing bubble, and the crash and recession that followed. That is not to lame credit or blame at any one person's feet because the US economy is much to large to be influenced by whoever sits in the Oval Office. That person is pretty much at the whim of what the economy is going to do.

Specifically to the surpluses, I believe that Clinton had like 5-6 in his 8 years in office. But I am pretty sure that only one of those surpluses resulted from him submitting a budget that was less than the expected tax receipts. In the others, the amount of taxes simply exceeded the amount spent by so much due to the economy blowing up (in a good way).

You are of course, free to lump me in with whoever you like, but the fact is that you don't know my opinions on almost anything yet assume you do. Just because I don't follow your version of events with everything that happened with Monica or that I am not willing to blame Bush for everything bad that has happened since 2001 or that I am unwilling to give Obama a pass on everything doesn't make me an ideologue. It makes me a realist.


----------



## 32rollandrock

vpkozel said:


> Well, apparently I touched a nerve.
> 
> I also think it is funny that you resort to name calling as soon as someone calls you on your facts. I am going to be kind of busy today, so please do not take my lack of a response today as anything other than this will not be a priority for me and will obviously take time to get together.
> 
> As to what he said in the SOTU speech, at the time he gave it, the economy had indeed grown at an amazing rate, but that also lead to the tech bubble, the housing bubble, and the crash and recession that followed. That is not to lame credit or blame at any one person's feet because the US economy is much to large to be influenced by whoever sits in the Oval Office. That person is pretty much at the whim of what the economy is going to do.
> 
> Specifically to the surpluses, I believe that Clinton had like 5-6 in his 8 years in office. But I am pretty sure that only one of those surpluses resulted from him submitting a budget that was less than the expected tax receipts. In the others, the amount of taxes simply exceeded the amount spent by so much due to the economy blowing up (in a good way).
> 
> You are of course, free to lump me in with whoever you like, but the fact is that you don't know my opinions on almost anything yet assume you do. Just because I don't follow your version of events with everything that happened with Monica or that I am not willing to blame Bush for everything bad that has happened since 2001 or that I am unwilling to give Obama a pass on everything doesn't make me an ideologue. It makes me a realist.


Your first response made you a sheep. This second one makes you a defensive sheep.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> Your first response made you a sheep. This second one makes you a defensive sheep.


My guess is that you will keep responding with generic shots or slogans any time I respond, which is fine. Just don't keep saying that you are interested in facts, then run from them when they are provided.


----------



## eagle2250

It really is no secret, members of all or the U.S. military services have shown/show greater affinity for George Bush than they do for Barrack Obama. This has been proven repeatedly by the welcome afforded to each on occasions that they each respectively addressed the troops. Setting politics aside and hoping to avoid any needless arguments about the comparative culpability of the two Presidents in putting American forces into harms way, the fact is the troops are far more perceptive than we "citizens" frequently give them credit for! When he visited the wounded at various military medical facilities as the sitting U.S. President, George Bush routinely directed that cameras not be present and that those visits should not be publicized. President Obama, on the other hand, has shown little reluctance over the camera's presence on his stops to visit the wounded and has not visited them with anywhere near the frequency of visits made by his predecessor. I find it rather interesting to note that the most frequent politician visitor to the San Antonio Military Medical Center (formerly known as Brook's Army Medical Center), and with absolutely no public fanfare noting those visits allowed has been (the former) President Bush, frequently with his wife. One opportunity he had to visit Brooks Medical Center, Barrack Obama elected to play golf instead. To my knowledge, he has never been inside the facility. Our troops are bright enough to recognize sincere caring and concern, as compared to 'just another photo opportunity' and it shows!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

SG_67 said:


> Barrack Obama is a mediocre president and a mediocre intellect at best.
> 
> He's not exactly an inspiring figure and I think the reaction he received says it all. You salute and stand there because it's the least you're supposed to do.


+1...


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Chouan said:


> 32rollandrock, don't argue with a fool. There's no point, and the more you use rational argument and reason, the less rational response you'll get. Don't waste your time.


+1...


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

gaseousclay said:


> Honestly, 32, I don't know why you continue to feed the forum troll when all he seems to do is bait people into pointless us vs them arguments. You MUST be a Liberal if you disagree with his worldview.


+1...


----------



## 32rollandrock

vpkozel said:


> My guess is that you will keep responding with generic shots or slogans any time I respond, which is fine. Just don't keep saying that you are interested in facts, then run from them when they are provided.


Follow your own advice. Our postings speak for themselves.


----------



## Chouan

eagle2250 said:


> It really is no secret, members of all or the U.S. military services have shown/show greater affinity for George Bush than they do for Barrack Obama. This has been proven repeatedly by the welcome afforded to each on occasions that they each respectively addressed the troops. Setting politics aside and hoping to avoid any needless arguments about the comparative culpability of the two Presidents in putting American forces into harms way, the fact is the troops are far more perceptive than we "citizens" frequently give them credit for! When he visited the wounded at various military medical facilities as the sitting U.S. President, George Bush routinely directed that cameras not be present and that those visits should not be publicized. President Obama, on the other hand, has shown little reluctance over the camera's presence on his stops to visit the wounded and has not visited them with anywhere near the frequency of visits made by his predecessor. I find it rather interesting to note that the most frequent politician visitor to the San Antonio Military Medical Center (formerly known as Brook's Army Medical Center), and with absolutely no public fanfare noting those visits allowed has been (the former) President Bush, frequently with his wife. One opportunity he had to visit Brooks Medical Center, Barrack Obama elected to play golf instead. To my knowledge, he has never been inside the facility. Our troops are bright enough to recognize sincere caring and concern, as compared to 'just another photo opportunity' and it shows!


Or perhaps a guilty conscience on Bush's part? He was quick enough to seize photo opportunities when his political career was still engaged! Perhaps not with wounded people, but everywhere else, triumphant on the deck of an aircraft carrier, for example.


----------



## Chouan

eagle2250 said:


> It really is no secret, members of all or the U.S. military services have shown/show greater affinity for George Bush than they do for Barrack Obama. This has been proven repeatedly by the welcome afforded to each on occasions that they each respectively addressed the troops. Setting politics aside and hoping to avoid any needless arguments about the comparative culpability of the two Presidents in putting American forces into harms way, the fact is the troops are far more perceptive than we "citizens" frequently give them credit for! When he visited the wounded at various military medical facilities as the sitting U.S. President, George Bush routinely directed that cameras not be present and that those visits should not be publicized. President Obama, on the other hand, has shown little reluctance over the camera's presence on his stops to visit the wounded and has not visited them with anywhere near the frequency of visits made by his predecessor. I find it rather interesting to note that the most frequent politician visitor to the San Antonio Military Medical Center (formerly known as Brook's Army Medical Center), and with absolutely no public fanfare noting those visits allowed has been (the former) President Bush, frequently with his wife. One opportunity he had to visit Brooks Medical Center, Barrack Obama elected to play golf instead. To my knowledge, he has never been inside the facility. Our troops are bright enough to recognize sincere caring and concern, as compared to 'just another photo opportunity' and it shows!


I would suggest that the political inclinations of those serving in the US forces would tend more to the Republican side, given the background and inherent attitudes of many who make a career in the US forces. Certainly those in Britain's armed forces, of all ranks, tend towards the right in politics. Such a tendency would naturally make a Republican president more popular, whilst a Democrat president, especially one portrayed as and perceived as a liberal lawyer, would, naturally, create feelings of antipathy amongst people whose views tend to be more authoritarian.
I've yet to find a liberal politician with a legal or intellectual background who found any favour with military people, no matter what their policies might have been.


----------



## 32rollandrock

I'm going to respectfully disagree with this line of thinking. If Bush hadn't gotten us into a pointless war, there would be no wounded to visit. It also bears mentioning that both presidents were asleep at the switch when it came to the wounded--Bush had Walter Reed, Obama has the VA. The point is, if either Bush or Obama really cared about the wounded, this stuff would not have happened. They would have put their best people in charge and heads would have rolled before the media was alerted and hands were forced. They didn't do that--they didn't do anything close to that, either one of them. They talk a lot about ultimate sacrifice, but don't listen to what they say--watch what they do, or don't do. There was no excuse for either Walter Reed or the VA debacle, but there is an explanation: In both cases, the administrations thought they had more important things to do than ensure veterans got proper care. Isn't that, really, what it boils down to? What other reason could there be?

I really don't much care which president is more popular with the troops, nor can I explain why Bush is popular with the cannon fodder. I just have a thing against senseless death. Maybe that's weird. I do know that if I had a loved one who was killed or wounded in Iraq and Bush came to comfort me, I'd spit in his face. I really would.

If it isn't obvious by now, I am not a Bush fan. More than any other president in my lifetime, he stole the American dream with stupid policies both foreign and domestic. He had nothing--zero--going for him except his family name. He never held a real job in his entire life. He failed at most every business venture he undertook, and with other people's money that he would never have gotten absent his name. The only thing he succeeded at was running a baseball team (with other people's money), and then only because of huge taxpayer subsidies for a stadium--and think about it: When is the last time a major league baseball team went belly up? Ask Donald Sterling how much skill it takes to run a pro sports franchise.

It cracks me up, how much Republicans and Tea Partiers loathe Obama--a self-made man who actually overcame some pretty significant obstacles in his life--and give Bush, a man who took tens of millions of dollars of public money for private gain (again, look at the Arlington ballpark deal) and partied till he puked until middle age and failed time and again in the oil business and stood silent while heroes like Max Cleland were swiftboated (at least McCain and Hagel spoke up), a total pass, making him out to be some kind of standard bearer for the American way of life. Give me a break. Really. I'm not an Obama fan, but he exemplifies what America should be a lot more than Bush ever did, which isn't saying much.



eagle2250 said:


> It really is no secret, members of all or the U.S. military services have shown/show greater affinity for George Bush than they do for Barrack Obama. This has been proven repeatedly by the welcome afforded to each on occasions that they each respectively addressed the troops. Setting politics aside and hoping to avoid any needless arguments about the comparative culpability of the two Presidents in putting American forces into harms way, the fact is the troops are far more perceptive than we "citizens" frequently give them credit for! When he visited the wounded at various military medical facilities as the sitting U.S. President, George Bush routinely directed that cameras not be present and that those visits should not be publicized. President Obama, on the other hand, has shown little reluctance over the camera's presence on his stops to visit the wounded and has not visited them with anywhere near the frequency of visits made by his predecessor. I find it rather interesting to note that the most frequent politician visitor to the San Antonio Military Medical Center (formerly known as Brook's Army Medical Center), and with absolutely no public fanfare noting those visits allowed has been (the former) President Bush, frequently with his wife. One opportunity he had to visit Brooks Medical Center, Barrack Obama elected to play golf instead. To my knowledge, he has never been inside the facility. Our troops are bright enough to recognize sincere caring and concern, as compared to 'just another photo opportunity' and it shows!


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> I would suggest that the political inclinations of those serving in the US forces would tend more to the Republican side, given the background and inherent attitudes of many who make a career in the US forces. Certainly those in Britain's armed forces, of all ranks, tend towards the right in politics. Such a tendency would naturally make a Republican president more popular, whilst a Democrat president, especially one portrayed as and perceived as a liberal lawyer, would, naturally, create feelings of antipathy amongst people whose views tend to be more authoritarian.
> I've yet to find a liberal politician with a legal or intellectual background who found any favour with military people, no matter what their policies might have been.


I'm afraid I can't allow you to get away with making these ridiculous generalisations. People in the services have very varied political views, just as the general public have. There have even been communists in some regiments of the army. The navy, of course, has a historical reputation of occasional extreme mutinous bolshiness.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Langham said:


> I'm afraid I can't allow you to get away with making these ridiculous generalisations. People in the services have very varied political views, just as the general public have. There have even been communists in some regiments of the army. The navy, of course, has a historical reputation of occasional extreme mutinous bolshiness.


Uh, it's not a ridiculous statement:

https://nation.time.com/2012/11/05/the-military-vote/

If it was a ridiculous statement, then Obama wouldn't have been accused of trying to suppress the military vote during the last presidential election.


----------



## Langham

32rollandrock said:


> Uh, it's not a ridiculous statement:
> 
> https://nation.time.com/2012/11/05/the-military-vote/
> 
> If it was a ridiculous statement, then Obama wouldn't have been accused of trying to suppress the military vote during the last presidential election.


Uh, yes it _is_ a ridiculous statement. I certainly, and possibly Chouan also, since I gather he is English, were talking about the British services. The article you cite for 'proof' is about the US services. So different countries, different armies, different politics and different cultures.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Langham said:


> Uh, yes it _is_ a ridiculous statement. I certainly, and possibly Chouan also, since I gather he is English, were talking about the British services. The article you cite for 'proof' is about the US services. So different countries, different armies, different politics and different cultures.


Ah--I hadn't noticed where you live. Over here, the military most definitely leans Republican/conservative.


----------



## Langham

^ That's all right. We were a bit off-topic but Chouan was churning out bull.


----------



## Odradek

32rollandrock said:


> Uh, it's not a ridiculous statement:
> 
> https://nation.time.com/2012/11/05/the-military-vote/
> 
> If it was a ridiculous statement, then Obama wouldn't have been accused of trying to suppress the military vote during the last presidential election.


He probably was.
As far as I remember the military voters were very big donors to the Ron Paul campaign.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Odradek said:


> He probably was.
> As far as I remember the military voters were very big donors to the Ron Paul campaign.


I didn't know that anyone in the military made enough money to donate to any political campaigns.


----------



## Tiger

Odradek said:


> As far as I remember the military voters were very big donors to the Ron Paul campaign.


Money wisely spent, as Dr. Paul seemed to be the only person running for President who knew what he was talking about!

P.S. - Has it occurred to anyone that both Bush and Obama were/are terrible Presidents? Additionally, on the salient issues of federal spending, government expansion, foreign policy and interventionism, accumulation of debt, annual deficits, and complete ignoring of the U.S. Constitution, Bush and Obama (and the vast majority of Democrats and Republicans) hold nearly identical views? It's why some savvy commentators referred to the first Obama term as "Bush's third term"...


----------



## SG_67

Tiger said:


> Money wisely spent, as Dr. Paul seemed to be the only person running for President who knew what he was talking about!
> 
> P.S. - Has it occurred to anyone that both Bush and Obama were/are terrible Presidents? Additionally, on the salient issues of federal spending, government expansion, foreign policy and interventionism, accumulation of debt, annual deficits, and complete ignoring of the U.S. Constitution, Bush and Obama (and the vast majority of Democrats and Republicans) hold nearly identical views? It's why some savvy commentators referred to the first Obama term as "Bush's third term"...


I'm not in the camp of believing that the constitution is being turned inside out and upside down. FDR locked up American citizens of Japanese decent and Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus during the Civil War. Worse transgressions have happened and the country has survived.

I like George Bush but I will admit he was for the most part a mediocre President. He did a very good job at rallying the nation after 9/11 and for the moment, at that time, he was the right person for the job. I did agree with our going to war in Afghanistan as well as Iraq given what we knew then. I don't think it was a good idea to try to nation build however.

With that said, what irks me is the reflexive notion among many that Obama is some genius and worldly figure. He talks pretty, that's about it. Quite frankly, he don't talk all that purdy anymore! He's not a terribly impressive person and he's prone to making gaffs at almost every turn.

He has utterly failed to lead, build coalitions or to rally lawmakers to his cause.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

32rollandrock said:


> I didn't know that anyone in the military made enough money to donate to any political campaigns.


I might be wrong but I don't think Odradek actually meant military personnel, rather military suppliers and sub-contractors.


----------



## vpkozel

Here is a good high level timeline of the Lewinsky events. https://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/clintontimeline.htm

Please notice that Clinton first lied in a deposition very early in the Paula Jones case. So, unless you want to take the position that, just because he is President, someone can stand up and walk out of a deposition the way you mentioned because the questions get uncomfortable or because he knows his answers are not going to be truthful, then your self righteousness doesn't carry too much weight. It also would have put him in contempt of no less than 3 courts, including the USSC.

I guess that you can also say that a private citizen can't bring lawsuits against famous people, but a federal judge would disagree with you.


----------



## 32rollandrock

vpkozel said:


> Here is a good high level timeline of the Lewinsky events. https://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/clintontimeline.htm
> 
> Please notice that Clinton first lied in a deposition very early in the Paula Jones case. So, unless you want to take the position that, just because he is President, someone can stand up and walk out of a deposition the way you mentioned because the questions get uncomfortable or because he knows his answers are not going to be truthful, then your self righteousness doesn't carry too much weight. It also would have put him in contempt of no less than 3 courts, including the USSC.
> 
> I guess that you can also say that a private citizen can't bring lawsuits against famous people, but a federal judge would disagree with you.


I never said that a private citizen couldn't sue a famous person or anyone else. Who paid for Jones' lawyers? That's the point. I'm also aware that walking out of a deposition invites a contempt of court proceeding. The larger point is--and this has been said many times--who the president screwed doesn't have diddly-squat to do with public policy. It does have a bearing on moral character, but I would rather have a president who cheats on his wife (and in my opinion, that's between Mr. and Mrs. Clinton) than one who is utterly incompetent. Bush was utterly incompetent, and we're still paying for that incompetence.


----------



## 32rollandrock

SG_67 said:


> I'm not in the camp of believing that the constitution is being turned inside out and upside down. FDR locked up American citizens of Japanese decent and Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus during the Civil War. Worse transgressions have happened and the country has survived.
> 
> I like George Bush but I will admit he was for the most part a mediocre President. He did a very good job at rallying the nation after 9/11 and for the moment, at that time, he was the right person for the job. I did agree with our going to war in Afghanistan as well as Iraq given what we knew then. I don't think it was a good idea to try to nation build however.
> 
> With that said, what irks me is the reflexive notion among many that Obama is some genius and worldly figure. He talks pretty, that's about it. Quite frankly, he don't talk all that purdy anymore! He's not a terribly impressive person and he's prone to making gaffs at almost every turn.
> 
> He has utterly failed to lead, build coalitions or to rally lawmakers to his cause.


I so disagree with you on Bush, everything that you said, but respect the way you have stated your view.

I'm not sure that many people still have this reflexive view of Obama. I think that the rock-star shine wore off long ago. I've said this before, but it bears mentioning again (and being from Illinois, you will understand): Obama was not ready to be president. He was only four years removed from the Illinois Senate when he was sworn in, and anyone with even a passing knowledge of Illinois politics and government knows that's a poisonous stew. I think his lack of political maturity explains a lot of his failures. I think he might have been up for the job after a term or two in the U.S. Senate.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> I never said that a private citizen couldn't sue a famous person or anyone else. Who paid for Jones' lawyers? That's the point. I'm also aware that walking out of a deposition invites a contempt of court proceeding. The larger point is--and this has been said many times--who the president screwed doesn't have diddly-squat to do with public policy. It does have a bearing on moral character, but I would rather have a president who cheats on his wife (and in my opinion, that's between Mr. and Mrs. Clinton) than one who is utterly incompetent. Bush was utterly incompetent, and we're still paying for that incompetence.


It doesn't matter who paid for her lawyer. What matters are the facts of the case. And if he lied under oath about something so trivial, then why did he do that. If it doesn't matter then why not just say he did it? IMO, there are 2 reasons for that. One, people DO care. Two, it establishes a pattern of behavior which is very bad for someone who claims to be for women's rights and establishing that pattern is a major win for a plaintiff in sexual harassment cases.

I am still working on pulling together the budget stuff, but it is a pain because you have to go through each year's budget estimates to show what they thought they would spend vs. what they thought they would bring in.


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> I so disagree with you on Bush, everything that you said, but respect the way you have stated your view.
> 
> I'm not sure that many people still have this reflexive view of Obama. I think that the rock-star shine wore off long ago. I've said this before, but it bears mentioning again (and being from Illinois, you will understand): Obama was not ready to be president. He was only four years removed from the Illinois Senate when he was sworn in, and anyone with even a passing knowledge of Illinois politics and government knows that's a poisonous stew. I think his lack of political maturity explains a lot of his failures. I think he might have been up for the job after a term or two in the U.S. Senate.


The current POTUS is by far under qualified, over-rated, overwhelmed and under performing. The problem was exacerbated by the fact that he's an ideologue who has never really lived in the real world, has only philosophy to rely on and an adolescent's grasp of how the world functions. I think the current range of foreign policy problems is a testament to that.

His problem is that he sees everything through a domestic lens and he feels as though consensus if a pre-requisite for action. Even a cursory reading of the Federalist Papers will show that the executive was meant to be a decisive office where the paralysis of the legislature would not be as big a factor. Leading is difficult and it means that one has to work hard on bringing the public around to understand why they are wrong and why a seemingly unpopular decision is actually the right one in the end.

As for Bush, I really do like the man. It's so difficult to know how things might have played out if not for 9/11. He did the best he could and I think for the time, he was the right man. Could his administration have foreseen the financial crisis? I don't know. Was Iraq a mistake? I don't think so. I think what was a mistake was how we handled the post-war Iraq. Had it been handled differently, might the outcomes have been different?


----------



## 32rollandrock

SG_67 said:


> *The current POTUS is by far under qualified, over-rated, overwhelmed and under performing. The problem was exacerbated by the fact that he's an ideologue who has never really lived in the real world, has only philosophy to rely on and an adolescent's grasp of how the world functions. I think the current range of foreign policy problems is a testament to that. *
> 
> His problem is that he sees everything through a domestic lens and he feels as though consensus if a pre-requisite for action. Even a cursory reading of the Federalist Papers will show that the executive was meant to be a decisive office where the paralysis of the legislature would not be as big a factor. Leading is difficult and it means that one has to work hard on bringing the public around to understand why they are wrong and why a seemingly unpopular decision is actually the right one in the end.
> 
> As for Bush, I really do like the man. It's so difficult to know how things might have played out if not for 9/11. He did the best he could and I think for the time, he was the right man. Could his administration have foreseen the financial crisis? I don't know. Was Iraq a mistake? I don't think so. I think what was a mistake was how we handled the post-war Iraq. Had it been handled differently, might the outcomes have been different?


You realize that your first sentence is Dubya personified.


----------



## 32rollandrock

vpkozel said:


> It doesn't matter who paid for her lawyer. What matters are the facts of the case. And if he lied under oath about something so trivial, then why did he do that. If it doesn't matter then why not just say he did it? IMO, there are 2 reasons for that. One, people DO care. Two, it establishes a pattern of behavior which is very bad for someone who claims to be for women's rights and establishing that pattern is a major win for a plaintiff in sexual harassment cases.
> 
> I am still working on pulling together the budget stuff, but it is a pain because you have to go through each year's budget estimates to show what they thought they would spend vs. what they thought they would bring in.


Yes, it does matter who paid for her lawyer. Attorneys are granted wide latitude in what they can ask, and what deponents must answer, during depositions. That goes a long way toward explaining how Jones was able to retain such top-notch legal assistance. His political foes saw a chance to go fishing and embarrass him, and so they paid for her lawyers. And if you think that's irrelevant in the grand scheme of things and how this played out, then we'll have to disagree.

For the umpteenth time, I'm not defending Clinton for lying. He should not have done that. But he should also have used the deposition as a soap box and made plain what was really happening: His political foes were using Jones as badly as Clinton used her, but in a different way. Still, using is using. So far as I'm concerned, Clinton got some tail when he saw the chance--he used her--and thus opened himself to the attack.

I'm not so sure that people do care, or if they do, to what degree they care. If people really did care, if it truly mattered to them, then the Senate would have followed through on what the House started--that's the nature of politics. Politicians pander.

Let's be blunt here. Clinton was a guy who couldn't keep his pants zipped. There are lots of men like that. Does that mean they are guilty of sexual harassment? Not necessarily, but it sure opens them up to the accusation. I don't think that Clinton harassed Jones any more than he harassed Lewinsky, and Lewinsky says that she wasn't harassed. So the president can't keep his pants zipped. Big freakin' deal--should we also have impeached Kennedy? Roosevelt? Extramarital sex ain't a high crime or misdemeanor. It's a human weakness and/or failing. And in this case, Clinton's enemies exploited this human weakness that had absolutely nothing to do with public policy or Clinton's job performance. And yes, I understand that lying under oath is a crime. I get it. Really, I do. So let's move on.

You can chase the economic numbers all you want--my guess is that you will find, eventually, something to support your point of view. In my experience, that is the nature of economics--there are always contrarians who will spin and splice statistics together to support whatever proposition they started out with. So go ahead. But I don't think you have to be an economist to know that the economy was in pretty darn good shape under Clinton, especially compared with what it turned into under the guns-and-butter administration of Dubya The Destroyer. If nothing else, Clinton actually accomplished stuff, even with a Republican congress, he got things done, a lot more than Obama has been able to do. Bottom line, the guy could govern. No matter what your opinion might be, I think that you have to give him that.

My own view is, Clinton is the best president of the eight who have been in the White House in my lifetime, and I think that history will view him favorably--akin to reassessments of Truman. Fifty or 100 years from now, I think that Dubya and Reagan will be viewed as more puppets than president--way more sizzle than steak, so to speak, with Dubya in particular being considered as bad a president as Harding or Grant. Carter was a failure, LBJ's accomplishments, notably the Civil Rights Act, were entirely undercut by Vietnam, so he's also a failure. Kennedy gets an incomplete. I'm not quite sure what to do with George H.W. Bush.

I think the below link is fairly interesting. It's a ranking of presidents, and what I find worth considering is, with the exception of LBJ, liberal and conservative historians generally agree on which presidents were the best. They also, generally, agree on which ones were the worst. So, perhaps, when we have this discussion 20 or 30 years from now, we may find a lot more agreement than we do now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> You realize that your first sentence is Dubya personified.


That first sentence can be extrapolated to refer to any President.

There is an amateur hour quality to this President and his cabinet. They are constantly contradicting themselves, saying things in public that they inevitably have to retract within days! They appear completely reactionary and are prone to panic at the first hint of trouble. The episodes of this within this administration are legion.


----------



## 32rollandrock

SG_67 said:


> That first sentence can be extrapolated to refer to any President.
> 
> There is an amateur hour quality to this President and his cabinet. They are constantly contradicting themselves, saying things in public that they inevitably have to retract within days! They appear completely reactionary and are prone to panic at the first hint of trouble. The episodes of this within this administration are legion.


Exactly what I mean when I say he wasn't ready for this. And I'm not sure I agree that Obama has never lived in the real world. I'm not black, so I can't speak with firsthand knowledge, but I would imagine that being black in America (and yes, mixed race qualifies because you are judged on how you look, and Obama looks black) presents certain challenges that white people can never really know about.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> Yes, it does matter who paid for her lawyer. Attorneys are granted wide latitude in what they can ask, and what deponents must answer, during depositions. That goes a long way toward explaining how Jones was able to retain such top-notch legal assistance. His political foes saw a chance to go fishing and embarrass him, and so they paid for her lawyers. And if you think that's irrelevant in the grand scheme of things and how this played out, then we'll have to disagree.
> 
> For the umpteenth time, I'm not defending Clinton for lying. He should not have done that. But he should also have used the deposition as a soap box and made plain what was really happening: His political foes were using Jones as badly as Clinton used her, but in a different way. Still, using is using. So far as I'm concerned, Clinton got some tail when he saw the chance--he used her--and thus opened himself to the attack.
> 
> I'm not so sure that people do care, or if they do, to what degree they care. If people really did care, if it truly mattered to them, then the Senate would have followed through on what the House started--that's the nature of politics. Politicians pander.
> 
> Let's be blunt here. Clinton was a guy who couldn't keep his pants zipped. There are lots of men like that. Does that mean they are guilty of sexual harassment? Not necessarily, but it sure opens them up to the accusation. I don't think that Clinton harassed Jones any more than he harassed Lewinsky, and Lewinsky says that she wasn't harassed. So the president can't keep his pants zipped. Big freakin' deal--should we also have impeached Kennedy? Roosevelt? Extramarital sex ain't a high crime or misdemeanor. It's a human weakness and/or failing. And in this case, Clinton's enemies exploited this human weakness that had absolutely nothing to do with public policy or Clinton's job performance. And yes, I understand that lying under oath is a crime. I get it. Really, I do. So let's move on.
> 
> You can chase the economic numbers all you want--my guess is that you will find, eventually, something to support your point of view. In my experience, that is the nature of economics--there are always contrarians who will spin and splice statistics together to support whatever proposition they started out with. So go ahead. But I don't think you have to be an economist to know that the economy was in pretty darn good shape under Clinton, especially compared with what it turned into under the guns-and-butter administration of Dubya The Destroyer. If nothing else, Clinton actually accomplished stuff, even with a Republican congress, he got things done, a lot more than Obama has been able to do. Bottom line, the guy could govern. No matter what your opinion might be, I think that you have to give him that.
> 
> My own view is, Clinton is the best president of the eight who have been in the White House in my lifetime, and I think that history will view him favorably--akin to reassessments of Truman. Fifty or 100 years from now, I think that Dubya and Reagan will be viewed as more puppets than president--way more sizzle than steak, so to speak, with Dubya in particular being considered as bad a president as Harding or Grant. Carter was a failure, LBJ's accomplishments, notably the Civil Rights Act, were entirely undercut by Vietnam, so he's also a failure. Kennedy gets an incomplete. I'm not quite sure what to do with George H.W. Bush.
> 
> I think the below link is fairly interesting. It's a ranking of presidents, and what I find worth considering is, with the exception of LBJ, liberal and conservative historians generally agree on which presidents were the best. They also, generally, agree on which ones were the worst. So, perhaps, when we have this discussion 20 or 30 years from now, we may find a lot more agreement than we do now.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States


If the questions had been totally out of line, then I might agree with you, but the goal of a plaintiff in harassment cases is to establish a pattern of behavior, and I think even the most ardent defender of Clinton would agree he most certainly had that. Then they will generally go onto criticize anyone for bringing it up, question their motives, and accuse them of being an ideologue. Kind of like you did earlier.

But the bottom line is that facts matter, and while I disagree that Clinton was a good president rather than just having the unbelievable luck to be president during booming economy, he certainly is a fabulous PR man and politician. It also quite disingenuous to lay the recession at Bush's feet when a good number of people believe that it actually started in late 2000.

And I am not looking for economic numbers that can be spun, I am pulling together the numbers from the budgets submitted by Clinton, nothing more than that. The thing is that those numbers change though (as you would expect) as the estimates become more accurate and then become actuals (the process takes 3 years, IIRC). Does that make sense? Now, I would say that to submit a balanced budget, you would have to submit one where you proposed to spend less than you brought in, not submit one with a deficit and then claim it was a surplus when the economy wildly outperformed everyone's estimates.


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> Exactly what I mean when I say he wasn't ready for this. And I'm not sure I agree that Obama has never lived in the real world. I'm not black, so I can't speak with firsthand knowledge, but I would imagine that being black in America (and yes, mixed race qualifies because you are judged on how you look, and Obama looks black) presents certain challenges that white people can never really know about.


For God's sake what challenges did he have? The man is Ivy League educated, and has been fawned over all his life! Being alive presents challenges. I would argue that there are many people of many different ethnic backgrounds that face challenges throughout their lives. No, I'm sorry but I don't buy the bit about "he's struggled to get to where he is."

As to the idea of Reagan being a puppet, I couldn't disagree further. Ronald Reagan was a man of profound ideas and ideals. Before he came into the Oval Office he had been writing and talking about conservative ideas. It's very convenient to label someone as a puppet or otherwise uninformed as a way to dismiss their accomplishments.


----------



## 32rollandrock

SG_67 said:


> For God's sake what challenges did he have? The man is Ivy League educated, and has been fawned over all his life! Being alive presents challenges. I would argue that there are many people of many different ethnic backgrounds that face challenges throughout their lives. No, I'm sorry but I don't buy the bit about "he's struggled to get to where he is."
> 
> As to the idea of Reagan being a puppet, I couldn't disagree further. Ronald Reagan was a man of profound ideas and ideals. Before he came into the Oval Office he had been writing and talking about conservative ideas. It's very convenient to label someone as a puppet or otherwise uninformed as a way to dismiss their accomplishments.


Reagan, in my view, was an idiot and an idealogue. Since you are a fan, what did he do? What did he accomplish? He spent money like there was no tomorrow on phantom threats. He was a jingoist and an actor, all image, no substance. Grenada. Beirut. Iran-Contra. And this guy is supposed to be some foreign policy whiz, Teddy Roosevelt reincarnated? Never in our history has a president who made so many blunders gotten such a pass, and history will not remember him well.

Just because you went to an Ivy League school doesn't mean you never lived in the real world. I went to an Ivy League school. I think I lived in the real world before and after. During is a different matter.

I never said he struggled to get where he is, but if you think it is easy to be black, or mixed race, in America, you should try it some time. Except you can't. Neither can I, so neither of us knows what we're talking about in that regard. I do know that I have heard enough racist remarks by white people, including plenty with with advanced educations, to know that it's an issue. To say that a black person in America has never lived in the real world is to ignore a lot of realities.

One anecdote.

During college, a friend, black, and I went on a week-long bicycle tour through Virginia and North Carolina. This was 30 years ago--Obama and I are the same age. Every black person we encountered, and you encounter plenty of people when you're on a bicycle loaded up with camping gear and clothing, told us "Be careful." They weren't more specific than that, but I don't think that they were talking only about traffic. No white people told us that. In fact, white people barely spoke to us at all. I remember walking into a rural grocery store with my friend and conversation among the four or five people there stopped entirely. You could hear a pin drop. On the same trip, we spent one night in the basement of a dorm of an all-black college. I was the only white person among hundreds of black people. It felt uncomfortable. You should try that some time before saying that black people, particularly those of Obama's age, didn't face challenges. Race divides this country, perhaps not as much as it once did, but it does. I think that's pretty obvious.

An addendum: How much time did Dubya spend in the real world? Or Reagan, for that matter? Pretty much no time at all. And whatever your opinion of Obama, everything he became, whatever that might be, he earned. He didn't come from wealth or privilege, or from Hollywood.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> As for Bush, I really do like the man. It's so difficult to know how things might have played out if not for 9/11. He did the best he could and I think for the time, he was the right man. Could his administration have foreseen the financial crisis? I don't know. Was Iraq a mistake? I don't think so. I think what was a mistake was how we handled the post-war Iraq. Had it been handled differently, might the outcomes have been different?


Iraq a mistake? The chaos that exists there now, and in the rest of the region, was all caused by the overthrow of Hussein. How much bigger can a mistake be than going to war without knowing what the end result should be! What were the war-aims? Overthrow Hussein, I assume, then what? If the way that post-war Iraq was handled was a mistake then the origin of the mistake was in the mistaken and misguided, as well as dishonest, reasoning behind the war. A country should never go to war without an idea of what might result from the aggression. "We" won, and then didn't have the first idea, that made any sense, of what to do next!


----------



## 32rollandrock

Chouan said:


> Iraq a mistake? The chaos that exists there now, and in the rest of the region, was all caused by the overthrow of Hussein. How much bigger can a mistake be than going to war without knowing what the end result should be! What were the war-aims? Overthrow Hussein, I assume, then what? If the way that post-war Iraq was handled was a mistake then the origin of the mistake was in the mistaken and misguided, as well as dishonest, reasoning behind the war. A country should never go to war without an idea of what might result from the aggression. "We" won, and then didn't have the first idea, that made any sense, of what to do next!


Good point.

I think that it would be interesting for SG to expand on this notion of Iraq not being a mistake. Even my conservative friends, of whom I have a few, acknowledge that Iraq was a blunder from the word go. I would like to know why SG thinks that Iraq was not a mistake.


----------



## Langham

^^ Quite right. But personally I think Tony Blair must take a lot of the blame. Bush was a rather simple-minded fellow, easily led on by the devious Blair. Even now, when everything that could reasonably be said to have been fought for in Iraq is on the very point of being lost for ever to the very worst sort of Moslem extremists, Blair refuses to admit that he ever did any wrong - it's quite outrageous.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Langham said:


> ^^ Quite right. But personally I think Tony Blair must take a lot of the blame. Bush was a rather simple-minded fellow, easily led on by the devious Blair. Even now, when everything that could reasonably be said to have been fought for in Iraq is on the very point of being lost for ever to the very worst sort of Moslem extremists, Blair refuses to admit that he ever did any wrong - it's quite outrageous.


Any nation that had any kind of military presence in Iraq was wrong. At the end of the day, I think we'll find that way more people will end up dead than would have been the case absent intervention/invasion. There was a reason that Saddam rose to power, and there was a reason he did the things that he did to keep power. They are not good reasons, but they are reasons nonetheless. Iraq is a tough neighborhood where Western concepts of government don't mean much. To engage in nation building in a country like Iraq is sheer folly that evidences a complete lack of understanding of political, religious and demographic realities.


----------



## Chouan

All of the political leaders who either instigated the invasion, like Bush and Blair, or those who supported the invasion, like the Tory party in Parliament, have blood on their hands.


----------



## Langham

32rollandrock said:


> Any nation that had any kind of military presence in Iraq was wrong. At the end of the day, I think we'll find that way more people will end up dead than would have been the case absent intervention/invasion. There was a reason that Saddam rose to power, and there was a reason he did the things that he did to keep power. They are not good reasons, but they are reasons nonetheless. Iraq is a tough neighborhood where Western concepts of government don't mean much. To engage in nation building in a country like Iraq is sheer folly that evidences a complete lack of understanding of political, religious and demographic realities.


That is all true. Britain has a long and rather inglorious record when it comes to Iraq. It is pointless attempting to impose a system of liberal democracy on countries that are not yet ready for it.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

32rollandrock said:


> Good point.
> 
> I think that it would be interesting for SG to expand on this notion of Iraq not being a mistake. Even my conservative friends, of whom I have a few, acknowledge that Iraq was a blunder from the word go. I would like to know why SG thinks that Iraq was not a mistake.


Attempting to liberate oppressed people is not wrong.

That for a time Iran was surrounded by US Armor Brigades, and placed us in a good position in negotiating nuclear arms development, was also beneficial.

The mistake was in allowing the opportunity to be squandered.


----------



## 32rollandrock

WouldaShoulda said:


> Attempting to liberate oppressed people is not wrong.
> 
> That for a time Iran was surrounded by US Armor Brigades, and placed us in a good position in negotiating nuclear arms development, was also beneficial.
> 
> The mistake was in allowing the opportunity to be squandered.


I suppose you could argue that attempting to liberate oppressed people can be morally right, but it can also be foolhardy, which in the final analysis makes it wrong--you don't accomplish anything aside from killing people. I will also point out that the liberating aspect was secondary to the made-up WMD's. There is a reason why we don't try to liberate Tibet and the Ukraine and a whole bunch of other places that goes beyond simply unwinnable (and Iraq was also unwinnable, we just didn't get nearly as many troops slaughtered as we would if we started messing with China or Russia). If there is no vital U.S. interest at stake then you shouldn't put boots on the ground. There was no vital interest, and so we should not have put boots on the ground.


----------



## MaxBuck

WouldaShoulda said:


> Attempting to liberate oppressed people is not wrong.


I disagree. One man's "oppressed people" are another man's "immoral infidels."

It's a very slippery slope once you start assuming a role as The World's Moral Arbiter. Only one man who has walked the earth IMO has truly warranted that sobriquet, and look what happened to Him.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

32rollandrock said:


> There was no vital interest, and so we should not have put boots on the ground.


The vital national interests in Iraq were several.

1) To establish additional secular allies in the region.

2) To establish forward operating bases in the region.

3) Having a significant armored and land based air presence in the region.

4) All of which contributes greatly to convince Iran that nuclear development is a bad idea.

5) Provides an example for neighboring nations to follow.

I think we know and appreciate what examples they are following now that the opportunity is practically lost.


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> Iraq a mistake? The chaos that exists there now, and in the rest of the region, was all caused by the overthrow of Hussein. How much bigger can a mistake be than going to war without knowing what the end result should be! What were the war-aims? Overthrow Hussein, I assume, then what? If the way that post-war Iraq was handled was a mistake then the origin of the mistake was in the mistaken and misguided, as well as dishonest, reasoning behind the war. A country should never go to war without an idea of what might result from the aggression. "We" won, and then didn't have the first idea, that made any sense, of what to do next!


I can think of only a handful of nations that went to war with any idea whatsoever what might result from the aggression. You could possibly argue America in 1775, but we technically were not a nation yet when we went to war and our first attempt to be one was a dramatic failure. We did better on the second attempt though. Before that William in 1066 and then before that you probably have to go all the way back to Rome.

That doesn't mean that all the wars except those three were bungled or unjust though.


----------



## MaxBuck

WouldaShoulda said:


> The vital national interests in Iraq were several.
> 
> 1) To establish additional secular allies in the region. *An interest that even a nitwit could see would not be advanced by introducing a leadership vacuum into a land that houses predominantly Muslims.*
> 
> 2) To establish forward operating bases in the region. *No argument here.*
> 
> 3) Having a significant armored and land based air presence in the region. *Which we already had in the Arabian peninsula.*
> 
> 4) All of which contributes greatly to convince Iran that nuclear development is a bad idea. *That didn't work at all.*
> 
> 5) Provides an example for neighboring nations to follow. *I'm not sure what we've established in Iraq and Afghanistan are examples we'd want to see followed anywhere else in the world.*
> 
> I think we know and appreciate what examples they are following now that the opportunity is practically lost.


The opportunities you cite were, it appears, largely illusory. Of course, Monday-morning quarterbacking makes the coach look stupider than he actually was.


----------



## SG_67

Iran wasn't a mistake and here is why:

1) Iraq was starting to already game the system and was going to be de facto free of sanctions if not de jure.

2) Saddam had the infrastructure, both physical and intellectual, ink place to reconstitute a WMD program. 

3) The intelligence available indicated that Saddam had WMD. Hell, even he thought he did. His own military was so dysfunctional and frightened of him that no one wanted to be the guy who broke the bad news to him. 

Last but not least, there's something to just going Roman! I disagreed with the notion of liberating or bringing democracy. The reason it was right was so that the Arab world could see what we could do and that we could do as we please in their backyard. Essentially turning the Middle East into an American sand box the same was as the Mediterranean was a Roman pond back in the day. 

The mistake was pulling back. The mistake was leaving the seeds of terrorism behind and allowing them to germinate once again and showing weakness and am irresolute temper. Like taking a small dose of antibiotics only fail to kill the bacteria and therefore strengthen the strain. 

Iraq is a lynch pin in the Middle East. We could have had a strong government there with the backing of the royal houses of the region. Stability with Israel and the lifeline between Syria and Iran cut. Iran would have been surrounded and there would have been a modicum of stability in the region. 

No one wants conflict but there are times when there's really no option. As for calling George Bush or Ronald Reagan idiots I'll just let that go. It's really the most imbecilic outlook and criticism of their accomplishments. Instead of being thoughtful but critical, we resort to just saying someone is stupid. A freshman debate team knows better than that.


----------



## Tiger

32rollandrock said:


> ...with Dubya in particular being considered as bad a president as Harding or Grant...


Please tell us why Warren Harding was such a "bad President." Also, would that extend to Coolidge as well?


----------



## Tiger

SG_67 said:


> I'm not in the camp of believing that the constitution is being turned inside out and upside down. FDR locked up American citizens of Japanese decent and Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus during the Civil War. Worse transgressions have happened and the country has survived.


You're missing the point; please don't focus on relative minutiae!

Please read the first three articles of the U.S. Constitution (and its first ten amendments), then ask yourself - "Is this what the current federal government looks like today?" One only needs to read - and understand - the Constitution (it's not difficult) to realize that the federal government has acquired enormous power in all three branches over the past two hundred plus years, just about all of it in violation of the document that was supposed to create the specific structure of that very same government.

Limited government? Dead and buried! Federalism? Long since perished! Separation of powers? Just a shadow of the original intent! Checks and balances? Nearly non-existent!

The vast majority of current federal activity is unconstitutional, if the document as written and ratified means what its framers and ratifiers said it meant...


----------



## Tiger

A stray thought: One can only hope that everyone reading this thread recognizes that there's an enormous chasm between the political ideology of neoconservatives and other branches of conservatism (e.g., paleoconservatives).

To lump all "conservatives" into one assemblage would be incredibly inaccurate...


----------



## 32rollandrock

SG_67 said:


> Iran wasn't a mistake and here is why:
> 
> 1) Iraq was starting to already game the system and was going to be de facto free of sanctions if not de jure.
> 
> 2) Saddam had the infrastructure, both physical and intellectual, ink place to reconstitute a WMD program.
> 
> 3) The intelligence available indicated that Saddam had WMD. Hell, even he thought he did. His own military was so dysfunctional and frightened of him that no one wanted to be the guy who broke the bad news to him.
> 
> Last but not least, there's something to just going Roman! I disagreed with the notion of liberating or bringing democracy. The reason it was right was so that the Arab world could see what we could do and that we could do as we please in their backyard. Essentially turning the Middle East into an American sand box the same was as the Mediterranean was a Roman pond back in the day.
> 
> The mistake was pulling back. The mistake was leaving the seeds of terrorism behind and allowing them to germinate once again and showing weakness and am irresolute temper. Like taking a small dose of antibiotics only fail to kill the bacteria and therefore strengthen the strain.
> 
> Iraq is a lynch pin in the Middle East. We could have had a strong government there with the backing of the royal houses of the region. Stability with Israel and the lifeline between Syria and Iran cut. Iran would have been surrounded and there would have been a modicum of stability in the region.
> 
> No one wants conflict but there are times when there's really no option. As for calling George Bush or Ronald Reagan idiots I'll just let that go. It's really the most imbecilic outlook and criticism of their accomplishments. Instead of being thoughtful but critical, we resort to just saying someone is stupid. A freshman debate team knows better than that.


This isn't even worth refuting point by point. Stop eating the brown acid.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Tiger said:


> Please tell us why Warren Harding was such a "bad President." Also, would that extend to Coolidge as well?


What has Harding done for you lately? Or Coolidge? Well?????


----------



## 32rollandrock

Do you understand the term "vital?" It is considerably different than "rationalize."

That said, MaxBuck handled this pretty well, I think.



WouldaShoulda said:


> The vital national interests in Iraq were several.
> 
> 1) To establish additional secular allies in the region.
> 
> 2) To establish forward operating bases in the region.
> 
> 3) Having a significant armored and land based air presence in the region.
> 
> 4) All of which contributes greatly to convince Iran that nuclear development is a bad idea.
> 
> 5) Provides an example for neighboring nations to follow.
> 
> I think we know and appreciate what examples they are following now that the opportunity is practically lost.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> All of the political leaders who either instigated the invasion, like Bush and Blair, or those who supported the invasion, like the Tory party in Parliament, have blood on their hands.


Perhaps - but especially the messianic narcissist Blair, for concocting fake dossiers and misleading Parliament. And for obstructing the Chilcot Inquiry ever since.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/crusa...sition-from-war-criminal-to-peace-envoy/26641


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Oh the supreme irony... Iraq asking the US for air strikes against the fundamentalist ISIS militias.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> Perhaps - but especially the messianic narcissist Blair, for concocting fake dossiers and misleading Parliament. And for obstructing the Chilcot Inquiry ever since.
> 
> https://www.globalresearch.ca/crusa...sition-from-war-criminal-to-peace-envoy/26641


He is indeed as you describe him. When I taught French history to undergraduates I used to heap ridicule on Charles X for having Polignac as his Chief Minister, as Polignac had told people that he communed with the Virgin Mary before making a decision. Then Blair said the same.....


----------



## Tiger

32rollandrock said:


> What has Harding done for you lately? Or Coolidge? Well?????


Some of us believe that the federal government has a very limited, constitutionally-defined role whose chief responsibility is to protect our political, economic, and personal liberties. We are not children who need presidents to "do things for us."

You obviously disagree, which is why you're a liberal who prefers the expansive federal government ideology of FDR, LBJ, et al., while I am a traditional constitutionalist who prefers Ron Paul and, yes, Calvin Coolidge.

Of course, the system of federalism - as enshrined in the Tenth Amendment - originally allowed for great latitude on the part of state governments to "do things" that the citizenry of each state requires. Unfortunately, the system devised by our Founders just wasn't good enough for the devotees of expansive federal power...


----------



## Chouan

Tiger said:


> Some of us believe that the federal government has a very limited, constitutionally-defined role whose chief responsibility is to protect our political, economic, and personal liberties. We are not children who need presidents to "do things for us."
> 
> You obviously disagree, which is why you're a liberal who prefers the expansive federal government ideology of FDR, LBJ, et al., while I am a traditional constitutionalist who prefers Ron Paul and, yes, Calvin Coolidge.
> 
> Of course, the system of federalism - as enshrined in the Tenth Amendment - originally allowed for great latitude on the part of state governments to "do things" that the citizenry of each state requires. Unfortunately, the system devised by our Founders just wasn't good enough for the devotees of expansive federal power...


The problem with quoting the Founding Fathers is that they were 18th century thinkers and both society and the political process has moved on since then. That they very rarely stated explicitly what they wanted or meant, such that their views, whatever they were, are open to a variety of interpretations, and that at least some of them were contradictory in their views, saying different things at different times.


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> This isn't even worth refuting point by point. Stop eating the brown acid.


Spoken like someone who has run out of ideas.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

MaxBuck said:


> The opportunities you cite were, it appears, largely illusory. Of course, Monday-morning quarterbacking makes the coach look stupider than he actually was.


Illusory now that the opportunity is practically lost.

Exactly.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

32rollandrock said:


> Do you understand the term "vital?"


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vital

Short of inaction directly leading to the destruction of the USA as we know it, I stand by what I said, as only a boob would take the definition that far in this context.


----------



## 32rollandrock

SG_67 said:


> Spoken like someone who has run out of ideas.


No, just energy. Due respect, but it would be a waste of time to respond to that list of "stuff" that made Iraq worthwhile.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Tiger said:


> Some of us believe that the federal government has a very limited, constitutionally-defined role whose chief responsibility is to protect our political, economic, and personal liberties. We are not children who need presidents to "do things for us."
> 
> You obviously disagree, which is why you're a liberal who prefers the expansive federal government ideology of FDR, LBJ, et al., while I am a traditional constitutionalist who prefers Ron Paul and, yes, Calvin Coolidge.
> 
> Of course, the system of federalism - as enshrined in the Tenth Amendment - originally allowed for great latitude on the part of state governments to "do things" that the citizenry of each state requires. Unfortunately, the system devised by our Founders just wasn't good enough for the devotees of expansive federal power...


Ah, here we go, throwing out labels (liberal) and jumping to conclusions. I'm afraid it's not that simple.

I do think that the government should take over health care. Just give Medicare to everyone. What we're doing now is profoundly expensive, and it doesn't work.

We should eliminate, or at least drastically reduce, fire departments. Buildings rarely burn these days due to modern building materials. We don't need a fire house on every other street corner.

Social Security should be shifted to a needs test. Sorry, but Bill Gates and Warren Buffett don't need Social Security to get by. It should be a very high needs test, but, essentially, if you have six figures in retirement income, you don't need social security. Spare me the "But it's my money" arguments. You made your money because you live in America, which offers opportunities and freedoms unsurpassed anywhere in the world. Give a little back to your fellow citizens, why don't you, and stop being so greedy.

All public pension programs should be eliminated in favor of defined benefit retirement programs. The notion that the only people who get pensions are public sector employees funded by the rest of us is outrageous.

Repeal the Second Amendment

Legalize drugs. All drugs. Government has no business telling anyone what they should or should not put in their bodies.

Eliminate primary elections. Alternatively, if parties want to have primaries, they can pay for the elections themselves. Lord knows they spend enough on political campaigns. Why should the public pay for something that should be an internal matter for political parties.

Put teeth into freedom of information laws. As it stands now, you have to have money to hire a lawyer if the government won't turn over public records. Create incentives for lawyers to take FOIA cases on contingency so that it's an equal playing field--the pauper has as much opportunity as the prince to get records and know what the government is doing. Openness would solve a lot of problems and eliminate a lot of shenanigans.

Eliminate the gas tax and substitute a tax based on miles driven. This country's infrastructure is crumbling and we need to do something about it. The people/companies that use roads the most are the ones who should pay the most.

Election Day is just one day a year. I've lived in places where there are three or even four elections a year, with the result being school and fire and park districts call special elections to get tax hikes when they know turnout will be low.

Vote by mail. They do it in Washington state and Oregon with no troubles. We should be doing that everywhere. It's less expensive than having polling places, and participation increases. If you don't like that idea, then you're probably not a fan of democracy.

Eliminate units of government/taxing bodies. Illinois, where I live, has 7,000 taxing bodies. The city where I live has fewer than 120,000 residents and a dozen police departments. That's nuts. There are mosquito abatement districts and cemetery districts and hospital districts and airport authorities--the list goes on and on, with each entity having its own bureaucracy and ability to tax. Stop it.

Sheriffs should be appointed, not elected.

OK, that's a sampling. Am I liberal or a conservative or what? You tell me.


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> No, just energy. Due respect, but it would be a waste of time to respond to that list of "stuff" that made Iraq worthwhile.


Then don't ask for someone to provide justification for the Iraq war if you're just going to reject out of hand any opinions contrary to yours.


----------



## eagle2250

If memory is serving me well this AM, this thread started out as a comparative analysis of the popularity of two U.S. Presidents with the military forces of which they are/were the presumptive leaders. Not surprisingly we seem to have digressed and while I would not presume to divert anyone from the focuses of lo our many digressions, I think, considering the original focus of this thread was on the comparative acceptance/popularity of President(s) Bush vs Obama, it is both worthwhile and interesting to note the comparative high regard their peer group of national leaders holds for George Bush vs Barrack Obama. Particularly our NATO allies seem to hold Bush in higher regard than they do Obama. As for our (potential) adversaries Putin holds Bush in arguably high regard, even going so far as calling him a friend and a "Statesman", while he has referred to Obama with rather obvious disdain! If 32rollandrock in his intellectual dismissal of the nonsensical opinions of the "cannon fodder" (his characterization, not mine), can we also so easily discount the impressions of our world's national leadership?


----------



## 32rollandrock

^^

I'll stand by my characterization: Bush treated the troops like cannon fodder. Remember Rumsfeld's dismissal of complaints from the troops about lack of proper armor?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

32rollandrock said:


> ^^
> 
> I'll stand by my characterization: Bush treated the troops like cannon fodder. Remember Rumsfeld's dismissal of complaints from the troops about lack of proper armor?


In light of the transcript that follows, don't you feel silly and utterly ashamed that you fell for the mischaracterization of this exchange put forth by an obviously biased and ignorant media machine??

Q: Yes, Mr. Secretary. Our soldiers have been fighting in Iraq for coming up on three years. A lot of us are getting ready to move north relatively soon. Our vehicles are not armored. We're digging pieces of rusted scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass that's already been shot up, dropped, busted, picking the best out of this scrap to put on our vehicles to take into combat. We do not have proper armament vehicles to carry with us north.

SEC. RUMSFELD: I talked to the General coming out here about the pace at which the vehicles are being armored. They have been brought from all over the world, wherever they're not needed, to a place here where they are needed. I'm told that they are being - the Army is - I think it's something like 400 a month are being done. And it's essentially a matter of physics. It isn't a matter of money. It isn't a matter on the part of the Army of desire. It's a matter of production and capability of doing it.

As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time. Since the Iraq conflict began, the Army has been pressing ahead to produce the armor necessary at a rate that they believe - it's a greatly expanded rate from what existed previously, but a rate that they believe is the rate that is all that can be accomplished at this moment.

I can assure you that General Schoomaker and the leadership in the Army and certainly General Whitcomb are sensitive to the fact that not every vehicle has the degree of armor that would be desirable for it to have, but that they're working at it at a good clip. It's interesting, I've talked a great deal about this with a team of people who've been working on it hard at the Pentagon. And if you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up. And you can have an up-armored humvee and it can be blown up. And you can go down and, the vehicle, the goal we have is to have as many of those vehicles as is humanly possible with the appropriate level of armor available for the troops. And that is what the Army has been working on.

And General Whitcomb, is there anything you'd want to add to that?

GEN. WHITCOMB: Nothing. [Laughter] Mr. Secretary, I'd be happy to. That is a focus on what we do here in Kuwait and what is done up in the theater, both in Iraq and also in Afghanistan. As the secretary has said, it's not a matter of money or desire; it is a matter of the logistics of being able to produce it. The 699[SUP]th[/SUP], the team that we've got here in Kuwait has done [Cheers] a tremendous effort to take that steel that they have and cut it, prefab it and put it on vehicles. But there is nobody from the president on down that is not aware that this is a challenge for us and this is a desire for us to accomplish.

SEC. RUMSFELD: The other day, after there was a big threat alert in Washington, D.C. in connection with the elections, as I recall, I looked outside the Pentagon and there were six or eight up-armored humvees. They're not there anymore. [Cheers] [Applause] They're en route out here, I can assure you. Next. Way in the back. Yes.

https://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=1980


----------



## tocqueville

eagle2250 said:


> Particularly our NATO allies seem to hold Bush in higher regard than they do Obama. As for our (potential) adversaries Putin holds Bush in arguably high regard, even going so far as calling him a friend and a "Statesman", while he has referred to Obama with rather obvious disdain!


I don't think this is true at all. I know it's a talking point these days for conservatives in the press, but it's based on nothing. I mean, according to whom?


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> The problem with quoting the Founding Fathers is that they were 18th century thinkers and both society and the political process has moved on since then. That they very rarely stated explicitly what they wanted or meant, such that their views, whatever they were, are open to a variety of interpretations, and that at least some of them were contradictory in their views, saying different things at different times.


This is utter nonsense. If "society and the political process has moved on since then" all that is needed is to amend the Constitution, as per Article V. No need to capriciously destroy the Constitution, unless of course we fear that such political whims could never be actualized unless we circumvent law.

The premise that time makes principles obsolete is foolish - are murder, rape, and child molestation now morally (or legally) acceptable?

_Pace _your second sentence, the opposite is true. The Founders were usually explicit in their meaning, and very little was left to interpretation. No one is arguing (or even suggesting) that there was complete uniformity between every Founder and Framer, but if we wish to ascertain their collective will, all we need do is examine the Constitution and the state conventions that ratified it - you'll find far more clarity than you suppose.

The notion that the principles upon which the federal compact is based are undefinable, amorphous, or arcane is ludicrous...


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> Ah, here we go, throwing out labels (liberal) and jumping to conclusions. I'm afraid it's not that simple.
> 
> I do think that the government should take over health care. Just give Medicare to everyone. What we're doing now is profoundly expensive, and it doesn't work.
> 
> We should eliminate, or at least drastically reduce, fire departments. Buildings rarely burn these days due to modern building materials. We don't need a fire house on every other street corner.
> 
> Social Security should be shifted to a needs test. Sorry, but Bill Gates and Warren Buffett don't need Social Security to get by. It should be a very high needs test, but, essentially, if you have six figures in retirement income, you don't need social security. Spare me the "But it's my money" arguments. You made your money because you live in America, which offers opportunities and freedoms unsurpassed anywhere in the world. Give a little back to your fellow citizens, why don't you, and stop being so greedy.
> 
> All public pension programs should be eliminated in favor of defined benefit retirement programs. The notion that the only people who get pensions are public sector employees funded by the rest of us is outrageous.
> 
> Repeal the Second Amendment
> 
> Legalize drugs. All drugs. Government has no business telling anyone what they should or should not put in their bodies.
> 
> Eliminate primary elections. Alternatively, if parties want to have primaries, they can pay for the elections themselves. Lord knows they spend enough on political campaigns. Why should the public pay for something that should be an internal matter for political parties.
> 
> Put teeth into freedom of information laws. As it stands now, you have to have money to hire a lawyer if the government won't turn over public records. Create incentives for lawyers to take FOIA cases on contingency so that it's an equal playing field--the pauper has as much opportunity as the prince to get records and know what the government is doing. Openness would solve a lot of problems and eliminate a lot of shenanigans.
> 
> Eliminate the gas tax and substitute a tax based on miles driven. This country's infrastructure is crumbling and we need to do something about it. The people/companies that use roads the most are the ones who should pay the most.
> 
> Election Day is just one day a year. I've lived in places where there are three or even four elections a year, with the result being school and fire and park districts call special elections to get tax hikes when they know turnout will be low.
> 
> Vote by mail. They do it in Washington state and Oregon with no troubles. We should be doing that everywhere. It's less expensive than having polling places, and participation increases. If you don't like that idea, then you're probably not a fan of democracy.
> 
> Eliminate units of government/taxing bodies. Illinois, where I live, has 7,000 taxing bodies. The city where I live has fewer than 120,000 residents and a dozen police departments. That's nuts. There are mosquito abatement districts and cemetery districts and hospital districts and airport authorities--the list goes on and on, with each entity having its own bureaucracy and ability to tax. Stop it.
> 
> Sheriffs should be appointed, not elected.
> 
> OK, that's a sampling. Am I liberal or a conservative or what? You tell me.


You might be surprised but I tend to agree on quite a few of these points with you.

However, if government has no businesses telling us what we should put into our bodies, then what right does it have in controlling how we defend ourselves or the ownership of firearms?

If SS should be means tested, how does that stack up against your prescription for everyone having Medicare?

Why should the local sheriff be appointed? Just curious.

As for the "it's my money" argument, well, it's my money! Just curious why you feel that way. Should we just call it a tax? What's your method of means testing? Do you want a society of pure givers and pure takers? I just wonder what the hostility toward capital is.

I don't believe our rights and privileges come from government or from America. They come from God and our government is basically there to protect it. If I'm able to prosper it's because I've applied my God given talents and the government has basically seen to it that my right to do so is protected. At what point does this become greed? Do I not pay taxes on a progressive scale? I'm already giving back. How much more should I give back? Please tell me a fair method or otherwise give me a max amount that I should be allowed to make. I don't want to be known as greedy.

By the way, if government has no right to tell me what I should put into my body, why does it have a right to tell me how much I should make and to determine the line between greedy and not greedy. What right does government have to go into my pocket more than it needs?


----------



## Tiger

32rollandrock said:


> Ah, here we go, throwing out labels (liberal) and jumping to conclusions. I'm afraid it's not that simple...


I based my remark on various postings by you that indicated your affinity for Democratic politicians not known for their sense of limited government or constitutional fealty, and especially your remarks about Harding and Coolidge. If you wish to avoid being characterized as a liberal, that's fine by me; your political beliefs are your own.

Hope I made clear my political beliefs in the past few posts...


----------



## 32rollandrock

Are you seriously defending Warren Harding? Seriously?



Tiger said:


> I based my remark on various postings by you that indicated your affinity for Democratic politicians not known for their sense of limited government or constitutional fealty, and especially your remarks about Harding and Coolidge. If you wish to avoid being characterized as a liberal, that's fine by me; your political beliefs are your own.
> 
> Hope I made clear my political beliefs in the past few posts...


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> ^^
> 
> I'll stand by my characterization: Bush treated the troops like cannon fodder. Remember Rumsfeld's dismissal of complaints from the troops about lack of proper armor?


Just curiously, what are your feelings on how FDR or Lincoln treated the troops then?


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> The problem with quoting the Founding Fathers is that they were 18th century thinkers and both society and the political process has moved on since then. That they very rarely stated explicitly what they wanted or meant, such that their views, whatever they were, are open to a variety of interpretations, and that at least some of them were contradictory in their views, saying different things at different times.


That is absolutely 100% false. In addition to the Federalist papers, which can be purchased in bookshops even on your side of the Pond, all of the Constitutional Convention and House debates on the Bill of Rights (in addition to any supporting documentation on that concept) can be found here - https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/toc.html

These men knew what they were doing and they knew that they had the obligation to preserve it all for posterity so that no one would later say things like "they very rarely stated explicitly what they wanted or meant." Now, later in life a several people updated their views, but everyone does that - which is why Reagan was not a Democrat President. But to say that we don't know what the thought at that moment, why they made the concessions that they did, and the eventual votes on what they wanted to say is not accurate.


----------



## Tiger

32rollandrock said:


> Are you seriously defending Warren Harding? Seriously?


It was you who said that Harding was a "bad President." When I asked why you thought so, you responded with a question - "What has Harding (and Coolidge) done for you?" I then responded (see post #73). Yet, you continue to ask me questions, when you're the one making unsupported attacks on Harding and Coolidge.

Let's simplify: I like any president (or politician) who believes in a limited federal government, individual liberty, and laissez-faire economic principles (perhaps those concepts are not to your liking?). Harding and Coolidge fit the bill, and there's my defense of those gentlemen. If you wish to consider their amelioration of the recession/depression of 1920, throw that in, too.

Now, finally, can _*you*_ tell us all why they were so terrible, in your estimation?


----------



## 32rollandrock

SG_67 said:


> You might be surprised but I tend to agree on quite a few of these points with you.
> 
> However, if government has no businesses telling us what we should put into our bodies, then what right does it have in controlling how we defend ourselves or the ownership of firearms?
> 
> If SS should be means tested, how does that stack up against your prescription for everyone having Medicare?
> 
> Why should the local sheriff be appointed? Just curious.
> 
> As for the "it's my money" argument, well, it's my money! Just curious why you feel that way. Should we just call it a tax? What's your method of means testing? Do you want a society of pure givers and pure takers? I just wonder what the hostility toward capital is.
> 
> I don't believe our rights and privileges come from government or from America. They come from God and our government is basically there to protect it. If I'm able to prosper it's because I've applied my God given talents and the government has basically seen to it that my right to do so is protected. At what point does this become greed? Do I not pay taxes on a progressive scale? I'm already giving back. How much more should I give back? Please tell me a fair method or otherwise give me a max amount that I should be allowed to make. I don't want to be known as greedy.
> 
> By the way, if government has no right to tell me what I should put into my body, why does it have a right to tell me how much I should make and to determine the line between greedy and not greedy. What right does government have to go into my pocket more than it needs?


Actually, I am not surprised at all that we agree on stuff. That was largely the point. When people go throwing out overly simplistic labels, such as "liberal" (and I don't necessarily mean you, because I'm not sure that you've done that), they tend to jettison the notion that people, at least thinking people, cannot, or at least should not, be pigeon-holed that way. I don't consider myself liberal, but I also don't consider "liberal" to be a pejorative term, and it is used that way much too often. A certain segment of the populace seems to think that "liberal" is synonymous with "idiot" and that the rest of the populace also thinks that way. I think that's unfortunate.

Back to specifics.

I believe if the founding fathers could see what was happening today with mass shootings and other forms of gun violence and the unspread proliferation of firearms throughout the population that they would not have included the second amendment in the constitution. I believe that it will eventually be excised. It simply makes no sense to include a mechanical device in a constitution, any more than it makes sense to protect public-sector pensions in state constitutions (and there are plenty of those). Constitutions should enshrine and protect such basics as the right to vote and the right to free speech and the right to practice the religion of your choice. Your freedom to target shoot or pack heat wherever you choose to go doesn't apply. No one, leastways not me, is endorsing the idea of jack-booted government thugs breaking down doors to seize guns--people who say such things are, in my view, opportunistic alarmists. But the second amendment has created more problems than it has solved. I can recall just one case where a crazed shooter was stopped by a bystander, and that bystander (in Seattle) used pepper spray. Of course, we also have to consider that the crazed shooter's choice of a shotgun in Seattle was not, perhaps, the weapon of choice for competent crazed shooters. For me, though, it goes beyond crazed shooters. Too many arguments that would be settled with fists and black eyes get settled with someone six feet under. Too many kids find guns and kill themselves or playmates. Too many liquor store robberies end with someone getting killed. My sense is, way more people die in stupid ways due to the proliferation of guns, rooted in the second amendment, than are saved due to guns being used for self defense. I know this argument doesn't hold any water with the gun-nut crowd, but I think that most people would agree with this. Certainly, that's reflected in gun ownership numbers that I've seen (https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/...is-down-survey-shows.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0). Fewer than 40 percent of Americans have guns in their homes, and that percentage has been going down steadily. I think it will end up like smoking. At some point, the percentage of smokers dipped to a sufficiently low number that the anti-smoking lobby was able to get just about anything it wanted in terms of restrictions on smoking. I think that the same thing will happen with guns, and it will culminate in repeal of the second amendment.

I'm not sure how you draw a connection between my sentiments on guns and legalization of drugs. Guns, I think, have vast potential to harm people other than the person who possesses the firearm. Drugs, on the other hand, have little potential to harm anyone aside from the person who chooses to use the drug (and we can leave alone the notion of drugged driving and the like--that's nibbling on the edges instead of going to the meat). Drug prohibition, on the other hand, harms a lot of people, and it costs a lot of money. Junkies would be less apt to break into my home, or rob liquor stores, if drugs were legal and the price not artificially inflated by the black market. A lot of people who have died in Mexican narco wars would still be alive. Junkies would be less likely to die if they could be assured of the purity and potency of drugs, which would be assured if they were legal. Junkies would be less likely to be junkies if money that is now spent on drug prohibition was re-directed into treatment programs available on demand. I wouldn't have to pay for so many cops and courts and prisons with my tax dollars if drugs were legal. Would legalization increase use? I doubt it. Consider perhaps the effective anti-drug move ever made by the U.S. government: passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act in 1906. It killed the patent medicine industry virtually overnight, once the government required accurate labeling so that people knew they were ingesting potentially dangerous drugs. People aren't necessarily stupid (at least all of the time). The Harrison Act, which made drugs illegal, has proven much less effective. Why? Because some people like to get high and there is nothing in this world that can stop that--they'll risk prison or death to get high. That's why drug prohibition has failed.

I'm not sure how you are connecting Social Security with Medicare. I'll start with SS. If you are a millionaire, you don't need it, plan and simple. Because no one knows for sure at age 18 whether they will be a millionaire at age 65, we should have Social Security--it is, or should be I think, an insurance policy of sorts. Now, I'm not saying what we should do with the money that isn't distributed to retired rich folk. One possibility is to lower the Social Security tax. You see, it isn't necessarily a matter of re-distributing wealth--and that's what Social Security, to a certain extent, does anyway even as we speak. It's a matter of being fiscally smart, and giving money to people who don't need it is not fiscally smart. As for health care, it would be difficult to devise a more inefficient system than we have now. Anyone who spends a modicum of time looking at it can see that it is insane--health care costs too much, too much money is wasted on such things as dividends for people who own stock in health insurance companies and hardwood floors and marble pillars and saltwater fish tanks in hospitals themselves (NYT had a great quiz a few months back that involved side by side photographs of luxury hotels and hospitals and challenging the viewer to tell the difference). At the end of the day, everyone is getting care anyway--hospitals cannot refuse care in critical situations due to lack of insurance or ability to pay, and there is also Medicaid. Expanding Medicare to everyone would eliminate the inefficiencies--no more silly television advertisements telling you to get your butt scoped at Colonoscopies R Us instead of the Acme Insta-Probe Institute, no more private insurers taking a skim/profit. Medicare actually works--ask anyone who has it.

As for sheriffs, when I was growing up, the local sheriff was in with the mob and was eventually tried and sent to prison for corruption. Wouldn't have happened, I suspect, if the position were appointive. It turned out that there were plenty of signs of corruption, but no one to complain to who could have fired the guy or otherwise done something about it. Instead, it ended up in the hands of the FBI, and that, by necessity, takes a fairly long time. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, I look at Maricopa County, where Joe Arpaio has been an unmitigated disaster, but he keeps getting re-elected because he has a great election bandwagon that feeds on fear and appeals to people who like the idea of whoever broke into their house being forced to live in tents in the middle of the desert. Meanwhile, the county's insurance rates have skyrocketed because people keep winning federal lawsuits against the sheriff's office. Bottom line, elected officials are very sensitive to complaints about law enforcement, and they tend, in my experience, to deal with problems more swiftly and surely than voters do or can. If the sheriff isn't running the jail properly or responding to calls promptly, I want him gone now, not two years from now when the election rolls around and voters may or may not do something.

I don't know that I ever said the government has the right to tell you how much money you can make. Are you suggesting, somehow, that you shouldn't pay taxes? Where are you getting this notion that I've said the government should cap incomes?


----------



## 32rollandrock

Harding, or at least the people he surrounded himself with, was corrupt as the day is long. Ever heard of Teapot Dome? So far as I'm concerned, corruption cancels out any good, and Harding ran, arguably, the second-most corrupt administration in U.S. history. Most people--well, at least me--would say that Nixon was a failure because of Watergate. Same thing with Harding. You can't have that amount of corruption in your administration and pass the word "Go" when it comes to a best-presidents contest. I was joking about Coolidge. I have nothing against the guy. Really.



Tiger said:


> It was you who said that Harding was a "bad President." When I asked why you thought so, you responded with a question - "What has Harding (and Coolidge) done for you?" I then responded (see post #73). Yet, you continue to ask me questions, when you're the one making unsupported attacks on Harding and Coolidge.
> 
> Let's simplify: I like any president (or politician) who believes in a limited federal government, individual liberty, and laissez-faire economic principles (perhaps those concepts are not to your liking?). Harding and Coolidge fit the bill, and there's my defense of those gentlemen. If you wish to consider their amelioration of the recession/depression of 1920, throw that in, too.
> 
> Now, finally, can _*you*_ tell us all why they were so terrible, in your estimation?


----------



## Tiger

The Second Amendment merely prohibited the federal government from infringing on the right to bear arms; states always had the power to do so, assuming *their *constitutions did not prohibit such infringement.


----------



## Tiger

32rollandrock said:


> Harding, or at least the people he surrounded himself with, was corrupt as the day is long. Ever heard of Teapot Dome? So far as I'm concerned, corruption cancels out any good, and Harding ran, arguably, the second-most corrupt administration in U.S. history. Most people--well, at least me--would say that Nixon was a failure because of Watergate. Same thing with Harding. You can't have that amount of corruption in your administration and pass the word "Go" when it comes to a best-presidents contest. I was joking about Coolidge. I have nothing against the guy. Really.


"Teapot Dome" and other scandals negates everything else? Hmmm...if corruption in an administration trumps all else, I'm not sure more than a handful of Presidents would be highly regarded. I despise corruption too, but it's a strange basis to attack Harding for what some moronic underlings did.

By the way, didn't you recently praise Mr. Clinton? Was he scandal-free? What about Landslide Lyndon and the Gulf of Tonkin Incident and the Pentagon Papers? JFK and the election of 1960? Obama and his troubles? Seems like a selective standard to me...

Good to read that you relented on Coolidge!


----------



## vpkozel

Tiger said:


> The Second Amendment merely prohibited the federal government from infringing on the right to bear arms; states always had the power to do so, assuming *their *constitutions did not prohibit such infringement.


That is not accurate. State constitutions must comply with the US Constitution. So, if a state wanted to prohibit gun ownership if could not do so, because it would run afoul of the 2nd Amendment. Now, if a state wanted to do away with all gun laws that would be permissible, because it does not narrow the rights granted in the 2nd. Also, when in a state, you are governed by the laws of that state, but all other states must recognize that state's right to govern itself. That is why you can go to NV and gamble and not get in trouble.

The bottom line on the 2nd is this - if you think it serves no purpose, that is great. The Founders put in a mechanism to amend the document, so knock yourself out.


----------



## 32rollandrock

vpkozel said:


> Just curiously, what are your feelings on how FDR or Lincoln treated the troops then?


First off--and this is key--neither FDR nor Lincoln engaged the nation in unnecessary wars. That's the starting point. Much moreso than Bush, both presidents managed to rally the nation (which is almost an unfair comparison--Pearl Harbor, and please, no conspiracy theories on FDR knew, rallied us like nobody's business; the Civil War was more complex and there was less than united backing, but Lincoln did manage to win reelection and most Union troops reenlisted when their first gig was up). Can't emphasize it strongly enough. Both Lincoln and FDR treated troops better because neither put them in harm's way without good reason. There was no "Mission Accomplished" slapped on anything by the White House and then attempts at obfuscation aimed at convincing people that troops had done it. Lincoln was known for pardoning deserters instead of having them shot. People can disagree about that, but I think that it shows appropriate empathy. Robert Todd Lincoln, Abe's son, actually served in the Army during the Civil War, although he enlisted late and didn't see action. That's pretty darn ballsy--Lincoln had already lost two sons to disease. Lincoln actually wanted Robert Todd to join the army sooner than he did, but Mrs. Lincoln, understandably, objected. I think Lincoln's willingness to allow his son to go into harm's way speaks volumes. OTOH, allowing rich would-be soldiers to buy their way out of the draft was wrong. I'm not sure how much responsibility Lincoln bore for this.

I think that FDR has a lesser record than Lincoln but a better one than Bush. Patton, for example, while a brilliant general sometimes traded lives for his own ego. FDR may have done well to get rid of him. He did make him pay a certain price, however, by keeping him on the sidelines on D-Day.


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> That is absolutely 100% false. In addition to the Federalist papers, which can be purchased in bookshops even on your side of the Pond, all of the Constitutional Convention and House debates on the Bill of Rights (in addition to any supporting documentation on that concept) can be found here - https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/toc.html
> 
> These men knew what they were doing and they knew that they had the obligation to preserve it all for posterity so that no one would later say things like "they very rarely stated explicitly what they wanted or meant." Now, later in life a several people updated their views, but everyone does that - which is why Reagan was not a Democrat President. But to say that we don't know what the thought at that moment, why they made the concessions that they did, and the eventual votes on what they wanted to say is not accurate.


Curiously enough I have a copy on my bookshelf. 
Tell me then, exactly what Thomas Jefferson's views were. Exactly what did he intend the United States to be? Were his views entirely consistent?


----------



## 32rollandrock

Tiger said:


> "Teapot Dome" and other scandals negates everything else? Hmmm...if corruption in an administration trumps all else, I'm not sure more than a handful of Presidents would be highly regarded. I despise corruption too, but it's a strange basis to attack Harding for what some moronic underlings did.
> 
> By the way, didn't you recently praise Mr. Clinton? Was he scandal-free? What about Landslide Lyndon and the Gulf of Tonkin Incident and the Pentagon Papers? JFK and the election of 1960? Obama and his troubles? Seems like a selective standard to me...
> 
> Good to read that you relented on Coolidge!


I was never serious on Coolidge. That said, I think that it's a matter of scale. The scale of Watergate, and Teapot Dome et al under Harding, overwhelmed everything else, and in Harding's case, you have to remember that he was in office barely two years. A lot of corruption in a very short amount of time, and not many accomplishments that I can see to counter. About the best thing he did was let Eugene Debs out of jail, which was actually a pretty admirable move (I'm sure you can appreciate the import of a guy like Harding springing a socialist).

No presidency is going to be entirely free of scandal (and I do find it interesting that you left out Iran-Contra, which I consider a pretty big deal, even though it has been mostly forgotten amid Gipper worship more based on image than substance). As I said previously--and you can look it up--LBJ was a failure because of Vietnam, and Gulf of Tonkin is part of that. Regardless, I'm not sure that the Pentagon Papers were his scandal. Sure, they were compiled under his watch and you can argue that he knew the truth but kept lying about the war. Absolutely wrong. However, unlike Harding, LBJ has some accomplishments, notably the Civil Rights Act, to counter the bad. Still, I agree, and always have, that his was a failed presidency.

Clinton wasn't scandal free, but I consider his scandals to be minor in the grand scheme of things. As I recall, they revolved mostly around his inability to keep his pants zipped and failure to tell the truth when confronted about it. That's a lot different, I think, and less serious than trading arms for hostages or putting unscrupulous political cronies into positions to take bribes or rat f--king or other stuff that Nixon did. As for JFK, I earlier gave him an incomplete--I think he is way overrated. That said, JFK didn't steal the election in 1960, his father did it for him. Joseph had the money and connections, not his son.

Does all of this sound like a selective standard?


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> Curiously enough I have a copy on my bookshelf.
> Tell me then, exactly what Thomas Jefferson's views were. Exactly what did he intend the United States to be? Were his views entirely consistent?


Well considering that he was in France at the time of the drafting and its ratification, I am not quite sure why that would matter.


----------



## tocqueville

Chouan said:


> Curiously enough I have a copy on my bookshelf.
> Tell me then, exactly what Thomas Jefferson's views were. Exactly what did he intend the United States to be? Were his views entirely consistent?


Given that he held men, women, and children in bondage, I would say no, his views were not consistent.

Chouan, what do you make of the contention that "our NATO allies" prefer G.W. Bush to Obama? Over here the right wing has been repeating over and over again the contention that Obama's "weakness" is eroding support abroad. The theory is that you foreigners like us strong, decisive, and interventionist, and that you all wring your hands in worry now that Obama is allegedly signaling retreat.

I open the question to all other "foreigners".


----------



## 32rollandrock

tocqueville said:


> Given that he held men, women, and children in bondage, I would say no, his views were not consistent.
> 
> Chouan, what do you make of the contention that "our NATO allies" prefer G.W. Bush to Obama? Over here the right wing has been repeating over and over again the contention that Obama's "weakness" is eroding support abroad. The theory is that you foreigners like us strong, decisive, and interventionist, and that you all wring your hands in worry now that Obama is allegedly signaling retreat.
> 
> I open the question to all other "foreigners".


I'm from Canada. Does that count?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

tocqueville said:


> Chouan, what do you make of the contention that "our NATO allies" prefer G.W. Bush to Obama? Over here the right wing has been repeating over and over again the contention that Obama's "weakness" is eroding support abroad. The theory is that you foreigners like us strong, decisive, and interventionist, and that you all wring your hands in worry now that Obama is allegedly signaling retreat.


Like women, they might say they prefer the sensitive type, but we know what they REALLY want!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda

32rollandrock said:


> Ever heard of Teapot Dome?


Sure, and that at least was not mischaracterized by an obviously biased and ignorant media machine of that day!!


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> First off--and this is key--neither FDR nor Lincoln engaged the nation in unnecessary wars. That's the starting point. .


No, it most certainly is not the starting point. There was no need - or real appetite - for us to go to war in Europe and the fact of the matter is that FDR had violated our neutrality long before Pearl Harbor. And Lincoln absolutely engaged the US in an unnecessary war. All he had to do was let the South leave. There was absolutely nothing that prevented it. But he wanted to preserve the union at all costs (including jettisoning the Emancipation Proclamation to win the 1864 election) when push came to shove. And he almost cost himself that election by backing Grant's wilderness campaign. If you want to talk about cannon fodder, read up on that 5 months of absolute hell.

Now, please don't try to take this and run with it saying that they did something wrong or that I am not glad we undertook those tasks, but if you had asked the US in 1877 how things were recovering from the Civil War or in 1957 how things were recovering from WW2, I think that the answers might surprise you.

The bottom line is that we probably lost more men on the morning of June 6, 1944 and in several single days in the Civil War (Cold Harbor, Fredericksburg, Antietam, to name a few) than we have lost in the entire wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And Patton was sidelined for D-Day but still served a vital purpose as a diversion and when push came to shove and FDR needed someone to breakout of the hedgerows or to break through the bulge, guess who he turned to?


----------



## Tiger

vpkozel said:


> That is not accurate. State constitutions must comply with the US Constitution. So, if a state wanted to prohibit gun ownership if could not do so, because it would run afoul of the 2nd Amendment. Now, if a state wanted to do away with all gun laws that would be permissible, because it does not narrow the rights granted in the 2nd. Also, when in a state, you are governed by the laws of that state, but all other states must recognize that state's right to govern itself. That is why you can go to NV and gamble and not get in trouble. The bottom line on the 2nd is this - if you think it serves no purpose, that is great. The Founders put in a mechanism to amend the document, so knock yourself out.


You are the one who is incorrect. The entire bill of rights was designed to shackle federal power, not that of the states. A state could prohibit freedom of the press (if the state constitution did not protect that right), for instance, but the federal government could not.

It is crucial to understand why those amendments were passed - the fear of many that federal power would become overarching. Adding a bill of rights was but one desire of the Antifederalists; they sought many other protections for states and individuals.

_*The bill of rights was never meant to restrict state power. Such notions of "selective incorporation" are twentieth century fabrications.*_

Since I know much about the amendment process described in Article V, perhaps you're the one who needs to "knock yourself out" reading about topics you seem to be unaware of...


----------



## 32rollandrock

vpkozel said:


> No, it most certainly is not the starting point. There was no need - or real appetite - for us to go to war in Europe and the fact of the matter is that FDR had violated our neutrality long before Pearl Harbor. And Lincoln absolutely engaged the US in an unnecessary war. *All he had to do was let the South leave.* There was absolutely nothing that prevented it. But he wanted to preserve the union at all costs (including jettisoning the Emancipation Proclamation to win the 1864 election) when push came to shove. And he almost cost himself that election by backing Grant's wilderness campaign. If you want to talk about cannon fodder, read up on that 5 months of absolute hell.
> 
> Now, please don't try to take this and run with it saying that they did something wrong or that I am not glad we undertook those tasks, but if you had asked the US in 1877 how things were recovering from the Civil War or in 1957 how things were recovering from WW2, I think that the answers might surprise you.
> 
> The bottom line is that we probably lost more men on the morning of June 6, 1944 and in several single days in the Civil War (Cold Harbor, Fredericksburg, Antietam, to name a few) than we have lost in the entire wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
> 
> And Patton was sidelined for D-Day but still served a vital purpose as a diversion and when push came to shove and FDR needed someone to breakout of the hedgerows or to break through the bulge, guess who he turned to?


Whoa. Then again, the South hasn't forgotten the Civil War (neither has Missouri, for that matter).

You are underestimating things. I believe that we lost more men on June 6, 1944 than in Iraq and Afghanistan combined, and we easily lost more men in a single Civil War battle than in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. That's not the point. The point is, one death is one death too many if it's in a stupid war that was started for a stupid reason (or no reason at all) and had no chance of success. That's the point. In the Civil War, at least, the Union was put back together and slaves were freed--whether you agree with that end is immaterial, the point is that some objective was achieved. In World War II, German and Japanese expansion were curtailed. In short, something got accomplished. Nothing got accomplished in Iraq or, to a lesser extent arguably, in Afghanistan (it is my view that we could have taken out Osama Bin Laden without going into Afghanistan).

I am not disputing Patton's worth. Just saying he had his faults. That's all.

Finally, I'm not much persuaded by what people say in response to polls. Inevitably, they'll say "The government sucks and we're worse off than we were before," regardless of whether you ask the question in 1877 or 1957 or 1997 or 2007. That's just the nature of how people think about government.


----------



## Mike Petrik

vpkozel said:


> That is not accurate. State constitutions must comply with the US Constitution. So, if a state wanted to prohibit gun ownership if could not do so, because it would run afoul of the 2nd Amendment. Now, if a state wanted to do away with all gun laws that would be permissible, because it does not narrow the rights granted in the 2nd. Also, when in a state, you are governed by the laws of that state, but all other states must recognize that state's right to govern itself. That is why you can go to NV and gamble and not get in trouble.
> 
> The bottom line on the 2nd is this - if you think it serves no purpose, that is great. The Founders put in a mechanism to amend the document, so knock yourself out.


Close. Actually, while it is true that state constitutions must be in accord with the US Constitution, that alone does not operate to constrict the ability of states to regulate or even prohibit gun ownership. The Second Amendment was originally and consistently understood to be a limitation on the power of the federal government, especially Congress, not states or their legislatures. After the adoption of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court gradually held that the liberties protected against state laws via the Amendment's due process clause "incorporated" those liberties included in the Bill of Rights.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> Whoa. Then again, the South hasn't forgotten the Civil War (neither has Missouri, for that matter).
> 
> You are underestimating things. I believe that we lost more men on June 6, 1944 than in Iraq and Afghanistan combined, and we easily lost more men in a single Civil War battle than in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. That's not the point. The point is, one death is one death too many if it's in a stupid war that was started for a stupid reason (or no reason at all) and had no chance of success. That's the point. In the Civil War, at least, the Union was put back together and slaves were freed--whether you agree with that end is immaterial, the point is that some objective was achieved. In World War II, German and Japanese expansion were curtailed. In short, something got accomplished. Nothing got accomplished in Iraq or, to a lesser extent arguably, in Afghanistan (it is my view that we could have taken out Osama Bin Laden without going into Afghanistan).
> 
> I am not disputing Patton's worth. Just saying he had his faults. That's all.
> 
> Finally, I'm not much persuaded by what people say in response to polls. Inevitably, they'll say "The government sucks and we're worse off than we were before," regardless of whether you ask the question in 1877 or 1957 or 1997 or 2007. That's just the nature of how people think about government.


I would hope that no one North or South ever forgets the Civil War. It was the transforming event in our nation's history. But you can only say these things were accomplished long after the war was over (and there are plenty who will find fault with the way that it ended and some who will say that we still have not accomplished anything). As for WW2, you can make a very good argument that it didn't really end until the Cold War did and even then you leave out a lot of the former USSR.

The point is that you want things to be cut and dried with Iraq and that just is not the way that this type of war goes. And I am not trying to show you that this has been a perfectly executed war or even a well executed one, but the BS about Bush using the troops as cannon fodder is just to illegitimate for me to let it pass without comment.

On a different note, you should probably do a little more research on Harding....


----------



## Mike Petrik

Tiger said:


> You are the one who is incorrect. The entire bill of rights was designed to shackle federal power, not that of the states. A state could prohibit freedom of the press (if the state constitution did not protect that right), for instance, but the federal government could not.
> 
> It is crucial to understand why those amendments were passed - the fear of many that federal power would become overarching. Adding a bill of rights was but one desire of the Antifederalists; they sought many other protections for states and individuals.
> 
> _*The bill of rights was never meant to restrict state power. Such notions of "selective incorporation" are twentieth century fabrications.*_
> 
> Since I know much about the amendment process described in Article V, perhaps you're the one who needs to "knock yourself out" reading about topics you seem to be unaware of...


"Fabrications" may be a bit strong, but your point has some foundation. The term "liberty" as used in the 14th Amendment's due process clause certainly must be accorded some meaning, but for decades the Court struggled because it appeared unmoored to anything and arguably could mean whatever the Court wanted it to mean. Justice Harlan (the second) tried to tie it to something called "fundamental" or "ordered" liberty, but plainly that just substitutes one ambiguity for another. Ultimately Justice Black prevailed in his argument that the term should be interpreted by reference to the four corners of the Constitution itself, and the part of the Constitution that most specifically addresses liberties is the Bill of Rights. Please understand, I am not trying to debate whether the incorporation doctrine is correct or not, I'm just suggesting that was developed as a reasonable solution to a real problem.


----------



## Tiger

32rollandrock said:


> I was never serious on Coolidge. That said, I think that it's a matter of scale. The scale of Watergate, and Teapot Dome et al under Harding, overwhelmed everything else, and in Harding's case, you have to remember that he was in office barely two years. A lot of corruption in a very short amount of time, and not many accomplishments that I can see to counter. About the best thing he did was let Eugene Debs out of jail, which was actually a pretty admirable move (I'm sure you can appreciate the import of a guy like Harding springing a socialist).
> 
> No presidency is going to be entirely free of scandal (and I do find it interesting that you left out Iran-Contra, which I consider a pretty big deal, even though it has been mostly forgotten amid Gipper worship more based on image than substance). As I said previously--and you can look it up--LBJ was a failure because of Vietnam, and Gulf of Tonkin is part of that. Regardless, I'm not sure that the Pentagon Papers were his scandal. Sure, they were compiled under his watch and you can argue that he knew the truth but kept lying about the war. Absolutely wrong. However, unlike Harding, LBJ has some accomplishments, notably the Civil Rights Act, to counter the bad. Still, I agree, and always have, that his was a failed presidency.
> 
> Clinton wasn't scandal free, but I consider his scandals to be minor in the grand scheme of things. As I recall, they revolved mostly around his inability to keep his pants zipped and failure to tell the truth when confronted about it. That's a lot different, I think, and less serious than trading arms for hostages or putting unscrupulous political cronies into positions to take bribes or rat f--king or other stuff that Nixon did. As for JFK, I earlier gave him an incomplete--I think he is way overrated. That said, JFK didn't steal the election in 1960, his father did it for him. Joseph had the money and connections, not his son. Does all of this sound like a selective standard?


1) You seem to think that "doing more things" is far better than "doing less things." If the things being done are ill-advised, pernicious, dangerous, or unconstitutional, I'll take "doing less."
2) Harding and later Coolidge reduced federal spending, taxes, and debt, leading to economic recovery. Isn't that "something?"
3) I only mentioned Democratic scandals, because those seem to be the presidential administrations that you've praised. By all means, feel free to include Republican scandals as well - I have no dog in that hunt!
4) You _are _being selective. JFK nearly got us into war with the Soviets due to his arrogance and ignorance, and lied about what had happened to the American people - a scandal far worse than Teapot Dome. Of course, he increased the amount of bungling in Vietnam that ultimately led to the assassination of Diem and the death of many American boys. Clinton's use of the military was also scurrilous - Mogadishu, Balkans (despite congressional prohibition), Sudan - that led to enemies all over the world for us. I wish his folly was solely limited to Monica Lewinsky!

My point is, to treat a scandal as a far greater negative than terrible and/or unconstitutional policies is foolish. I'll take Harding or especially Coolidge any day over Clinton, Bush, Obama, Nixon, et al.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Tiger said:


> 1) You seem to think that "doing more things" is far better than "doing less things." If the things being done are ill-advised, pernicious, dangerous, or unconstitutional, I'll take "doing less."
> 2) Harding and later Coolidge reduced federal spending, taxes, and debt, leading to economic recovery. Isn't that "something?"
> 3) I only mentioned Democratic scandals, because those seem to be the presidential administrations that you've praised. By all means, feel free to include Republican scandals as well - I have no dog in that hunt!
> 4) You _are _being selective. JFK nearly got us into war with the Soviets due to his arrogance and ignorance, and lied about what had happened to the American people - a scandal far worse than Teapot Dome. Of course, he increased the amount of bungling in Vietnam that ultimately led to the assassination of Diem and the death of many American boys. Clinton's use of the military was also scurrilous - Mogadishu, Balkans (despite congressional prohibition), Sudan - that led to enemies all over the world for us. I wish his folly was solely limited to Monica Lewinsky!
> 
> My point is, to treat a scandal as a far greater negative than terrible and/or unconstitutional policies is foolish. *I'll take Harding *or especially Coolidge any day over Clinton, Bush, Obama, Nixon, et al.


You should move to Illinois. Plenty of Harding types in state government here.


----------



## vpkozel

Tiger said:


> You are the one who is incorrect. The entire bill of rights was designed to shackle federal power, not that of the states. A state could prohibit freedom of the press (if the state constitution did not protect that right), for instance, but the federal government could not.
> 
> It is crucial to understand why those amendments were passed - the fear of many that federal power would become overarching. Adding a bill of rights was but one desire of the Antifederalists; they sought many other protections for states and individuals.
> 
> _*The bill of rights was never meant to restrict state power. Such notions of "selective incorporation" are twentieth century fabrications.*_
> 
> Since I know much about the amendment process described in Article V, perhaps you're the one who needs to "knock yourself out" reading about topics you seem to be unaware of...


Read down one more section and let me know what the Supremacy Clause says.


----------



## Mike Petrik

vpkozel said:


> Read down one more section and let me know what the Supremacy Clause says.


The Supremacy Clause does not serve to import the Bill of Rights to the States. The reason is that the Bill of Rights by its terms was a limitation on the federal government only. It took the adoption of the 14th Amendment to change that, and only because the Supreme Court eventually interpreted the due process clause's reference to liberty as referencing those liberties secured in the Bill of Rights.


----------



## Tiger

Mike Petrik said:


> "Fabrications" may be a bit strong, but your point has some foundation. The term "liberty" as used in the 14th Amendment's due process clause certainly must be accorded some meaning, but for decades the Court struggled because it appeared unmoored to anything and arguably could mean whatever the Court wanted it to mean. Justice Harlan (the second) tried to tie it to something called "fundamental" or "ordered" liberty, but plainly that just substitutes one ambiguity for another. Ultimately Justice Black prevailed in his argument that the term should be interpreted by reference to the four corners of the Constitution itself, and the part of the Constitution that most specifically addresses liberties is the Bill of Rights. Please understand, I am not trying to debate whether the incorporation doctrine is correct or not, I'm just suggesting that was developed as a reasonable solution to a real problem.


Understood. I need to do some research this summer on the motives of the supporters of the 14th Amendment, and what the states thought they were doing when they "ratified" it. Will help to understand if the selective incorporation doctrine is as illicit as I believe it to be (as contrary to the whole purpose of federalism).

Of course, there's another problem - the amendment was "ratified" by states that were not in the Union. Congress forced the ratification condition on seceded states in order for them to be eligible to rejoin the Union. Since when can a state _*not* _in the federal union have the power to ratify an amendment to the constitution of that Union? Could Rhode Island have ratified a proposed amendment in, say, 1790, before the state even joined the Union? Of course not! Didn't this happen in 1868?

I hold that the Fourteenth Amendment was never legally and constitutionally ratified...


----------



## 32rollandrock

vpkozel said:


> I would hope that no one North or South ever forgets the Civil War. It was the transforming event in our nation's history. But you can only say these things were accomplished long after the war was over (and there are plenty who will find fault with the way that it ended and some who will say that we still have not accomplished anything). As for WW2, you can make a very good argument that it didn't really end until the Cold War did and even then you leave out a lot of the former USSR.
> 
> The point is that you want things to be cut and dried with Iraq and that just is not the way that this type of war goes. And I am not trying to show you that this has been a perfectly executed war or even a well executed one, but the BS about Bush using the troops as cannon fodder is just to illegitimate for me to let it pass without comment.
> 
> On a different note, you should probably do a little more research on Harding....


My choice of words wasn't good. I should have said "gotten over" instead of "forgot"--what I meant was, there are still plenty of people in the South who aren't jiggy with Lincoln. Of course, no one should ever forget the Civil War. As for Harding, you and Tiger seem to believe that other deeds can overcome any amount of scandal. Perhaps I am missing something. What, precisely, have I overlooked on Harding that you think is pertinent?


----------



## Tiger

32rollandrock said:


> You should move to Illinois. Plenty of Harding types in state government here.


Please don't twist my words. Your sleight of hand here is unbecoming...


----------



## Tiger

vpkozel said:


> Read down one more section and let me know what the Supremacy Clause says.


It is clear that you do not understand the concepts of federalism, the purpose of the bill of rights, or the efficacy of the "supremacy clause." If your understanding of this clause is correct, every single state power would have been eliminated at the whim of the federal government. Just what the overwhelmingly number of the Founders and Framers would have wanted, right? Yeah, sure...

Maybe _*you*_ should read the Tenth Amendment?


----------



## 32rollandrock

Tiger said:


> Please don't twist my words. Your sleight of hand here is unbecoming...


Oh, come now--you said it. You can look it up. You said that you'd take Harding over Obama, Clinton, Bush, Nixon, et al. I haven't twisted your words one bit.

And I was serious. If you don't think that corruption in government is a big deal, you should try living in a state that is awash with crooks. It really is not cool. Every tiny little thing that the government does is, rightfully, viewed with suspicion. No offense, but if you don't or have not lived in Illinois, it would be difficult to understand.


----------



## vpkozel

Tiger said:


> It is clear that you do not understand the concepts of federalism, the purpose of the bill of rights, or the efficacy of the "supremacy clause." If your understand of this clause is correct, every single state power would have been eliminated at the whim of the federal government.
> 
> Maybe you should read the Tenth Amendment?


I beg to differ with your assessment, but you are of course free to hold it.

And the 10th says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

For your interpretation to be true, then any state could suspend any measure in the Bill of Rights or Constitution, which just is not the case. I mean they CAN pass such a law, but it would never hold up to a constitutional challenge.


----------



## Tiger

32rollandrock said:


> Oh, come now--you said it. You can look it up. You said that you'd take Harding over Obama, Clinton, Bush, Nixon, et al. I haven't twisted your words one bit.
> 
> And I was serious. If you don't think that corruption in government is a big deal, you should try living in a state that is awash with crooks. It really is not cool. Every tiny little thing that the government does is, rightfully, viewed with suspicion. No offense, but if you don't or have not lived in Illinois, it would be difficult to understand.


As I've already said, I loathe corruption, and would never excuse it. I simply made two points - nearly every Presidential Administration has had scandals, and that horrifying bad policies (and LBJ, Nixon, Clinton, Bush and Obama are prime examples) and unconstitutional behavior are far worse than a scandal such as Teapot Dome.

I hope that clarifies my position...


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> My choice of words wasn't good. I should have said "gotten over" instead of "forgot"--what I meant was, there are still plenty of people in the South who aren't jiggy with Lincoln. Of course, no one should ever forget the Civil War. As for Harding, you and Tiger seem to believe that other deeds can overcome any amount of scandal. Perhaps I am missing something. What, precisely, have I overlooked on Harding that you think is pertinent?


Well, I will agree with your point on some Southerners, but I would also counter with the opinion that there are plenty in the North who think that they are right no matter what because they won the war. And most Americans in general don't care to learn enough about the period to have a reasoned and factual discussion on the Civil War and what caused it.

I remembered the Teapot Dome thing, but wasn't 100% sure which pres it was, so I searched and a small list of his accomplishments are:

Created the GAO
Abolished the 12 hour workday and improved child labor laws
Improved mine safety

and some plenty of other stuff listed here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_G._Harding#Domestic_policies_and_economy

I am not saying he was the greatest president ever, but he wasn't nearly as bad as Jimmy Carter


----------



## Tiger

vpkozel said:


> I beg to differ with your assessment, but you are of course free to hold it.
> 
> And the 10th says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." For your interpretation to be true, then any state could suspend any measure in the Bill of Rights or Constitution, which just is not the case. I mean they CAN pass such a law, but it would never hold up to a constitutional challenge.


Again, you do not understand the issue. The bill of rights was created to be an additional/clarifying restraint on the powers of the federal government as listed in the Constitution. A state can't "suspend any measure in the bill of rights" because those restrictive amendments pertain to the federal government.

Perhaps you can provide an example of such a suspension, because I'm not really sure what you mean. I don't think *you're *sure of what you mean!


----------



## 32rollandrock

Tiger said:


> As I've already said, I loathe corruption, and would never excuse it. I simply made two points - nearly every Presidential Administration has had scandals, and that horrifying bad policies (and LBJ, Nixon, Clinton, Bush and Obama are prime examples) and unconstitutional behavior are far worse than a scandal such as Teapot Dome.
> 
> I hope that clarifies my position...


I agree that every administration has scandals. But, as someone else (I forget) has pointed out, unconstitutional behavior isn't necessarily a dealbreaker, Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus being Exhibit A. I'm not sure that I'm seeing where Nixon, Clinton or Bush engaged in unconstitutional behavior (I suppose military actions absent declaration of war might qualify in some, but LBJ did, after all, have Gulf of Tonkin)--you don't necessarily have to do something unconstitutional for it to be wrong (and I might be overlooking unconstitutional conduct here--it's been awhile since my last single malt, so my thinking isn't as clear as it might otherwise be). I would argue that Obama has definitely engaged in unconstitutional behavior, notably with regard to the fourth amendment.


----------



## 32rollandrock

vpkozel said:


> Well, I will agree with your point on some Southerners, but I would also counter with the opinion that there are plenty in the North who think that they are right no matter what because they won the war. And most Americans in general don't care to learn enough about the period to have a reasoned and factual discussion on the Civil War and what caused it.
> 
> I remembered the Teapot Dome thing, but wasn't 100% sure which pres it was, so I searched and a small list of his accomplishments are:
> 
> Created the GAO
> Abolished the 12 hour workday and improved child labor laws
> Improved mine safety
> 
> and some plenty of other stuff listed here:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_G._Harding#Domestic_policies_and_economy
> 
> I am not saying he was the greatest president ever, but he wasn't nearly as bad as Jimmy Carter


I'm not going to defend Carter--talk about someone in over his head. I still say that Harding belongs at the bottom of the dung heap. If he had not died midway through his term, it would have turned even stinkier than it was, I suspect.


----------



## gaseousclay

Hitch said:


> From under the bridge; ALL my threads come complete with my handle. You are more than welcome to stay away, pissant.


I'm back in high school all over again. Lol. you don't happen to own a fist cane, do you?










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tiger

32rollandrock said:


> I agree that every administration has scandals. But, as someone else (I forget) has pointed out, unconstitutional behavior isn't necessarily a dealbreaker, Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus being Exhibit A. I'm not sure that I'm seeing where Nixon, Clinton or Bush engaged in unconstitutional behavior (I suppose military actions absent declaration of war might qualify in some, but LBJ did, after all, have Gulf of Tonkin)--you don't necessarily have to do something unconstitutional for it to be wrong (and I might be overlooking unconstitutional conduct here--it's been awhile since my last single malt, so my thinking isn't as clear as it might otherwise be). I would argue that Obama has definitely engaged in unconstitutional behavior, notably with regard to the fourth amendment.


Lincoln's constitutional violations extend far beyond his suspension of habeas corpus...

Yes, the wars without a congressional declaration of war violate the Constitution, as does the vast majority of items in the now 200,000 page long(!) Federal Register of laws. So much for "limited government."

One need only read Article One, section 8 (the powers of Congress) and Article Two section 2 (the powers of the Executive) of the Constitution and juxtapose them to the myriad activities of the federal government to realize just how much that is routinely performed by the federal government is far outside the scope allowed under the Constitution.


----------



## Tiger

32rollandrock said:


> I'm not going to defend Carter--talk about someone in over his head. I still say that Harding belongs at the bottom of the dung heap. If he had not died midway through his term, it would have turned even stinkier than it was, I suspect.


So the financial scandals of the Harding Administration outweigh their economic accomplishments, and also are worse than the Bush Administration's War in Iraq, the Clinton messes in Bosnia, Somalia, and Sudan, the 58,000 American dead in Vietnam, the 38,000 American dead in Korea (not to mention non-combatants in both engagements), the additional $7 trillion of debt accumulated by the Obama Administration (and his malfeasance in Libya and nearly Syria), billions lost in bailouts, and the utter failure of the Great Society programs, to name just a few in this never-ending paragraph?

Again, I'll take Harding over all of the above. Go enjoy that single malt, 32rollandrock!


----------



## 32rollandrock

Tiger said:


> Lincoln's constitutional violations extend far beyond his suspension of habeas corpus...
> 
> Yes, the wars without a congressional declaration of war violate the Constitution, as does the vast majority of items in the now 200,000 page long(!) Federal Register of laws. So much for "limited government."
> 
> One need only read Article One, section 8 (the powers of Congress) and Article Two section 2 (the powers of the Executive) of the Constitution and juxtapose them to the myriad activities of the federal government to realize just how much that is routinely performed by the federal government is far outside the scope allowed under the Constitution.


Not sure I can agree--not at all. I am not arguing that the feds don't do a lot more than they should, but if the majority of laws in the federal register were unconstitutional, the Supreme Court would have done something about it by now--there are surely enough lawyers to have pushed it. Perhaps like Dred Scott. An awful ruling, but the path toward certainty was the 13th amendment.

As for single malt, that's more wishful thinking than anything. Today is the first day of a 90-day biggest loser contest with a friend, so no alcohol for me for awhile. Besides exercising self restraint and discipline, I am sending him a pizza with pepperoni, sausage, double bacon, extra cheese and anchovies. It is a two-front war, after all.


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> Actually, I am not surprised at all that we agree on stuff. That was largely the point. When people go throwing out overly simplistic labels, such as "liberal" (and I don't necessarily mean you, because I'm not sure that you've done that), they tend to jettison the notion that people, at least thinking people, cannot, or at least should not, be pigeon-holed that way. I don't consider myself liberal, but I also don't consider "liberal" to be a pejorative term, and it is used that way much too often. A certain segment of the populace seems to think that "liberal" is synonymous with "idiot" and that the rest of the populace also thinks that way. I think that's unfortunate.
> 
> Back to specifics.
> 
> I believe if the founding fathers could see what was happening today with mass shootings and other forms of gun violence and the unspread proliferation of firearms throughout the population that they would not have included the second amendment in the constitution. I believe that it will eventually be excised. It simply makes no sense to include a mechanical device in a constitution, any more than it makes sense to protect public-sector pensions in state constitutions (and there are plenty of those). Constitutions should enshrine and protect such basics as the right to vote and the right to free speech and the right to practice the religion of your choice. Your freedom to target shoot or pack heat wherever you choose to go doesn't apply. No one, leastways not me, is endorsing the idea of jack-booted government thugs breaking down doors to seize guns--people who say such things are, in my view, opportunistic alarmists. But the second amendment has created more problems than it has solved. I can recall just one case where a crazed shooter was stopped by a bystander, and that bystander (in Seattle) used pepper spray. Of course, we also have to consider that the crazed shooter's choice of a shotgun in Seattle was not, perhaps, the weapon of choice for competent crazed shooters. For me, though, it goes beyond crazed shooters. Too many arguments that would be settled with fists and black eyes get settled with someone six feet under. Too many kids find guns and kill themselves or playmates. Too many liquor store robberies end with someone getting killed. My sense is, way more people die in stupid ways due to the proliferation of guns, rooted in the second amendment, than are saved due to guns being used for self defense. I know this argument doesn't hold any water with the gun-nut crowd, but I think that most people would agree with this. Certainly, that's reflected in gun ownership numbers that I've seen (https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/...is-down-survey-shows.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0). Fewer than 40 percent of Americans have guns in their homes, and that percentage has been going down steadily. I think it will end up like smoking. At some point, the percentage of smokers dipped to a sufficiently low number that the anti-smoking lobby was able to get just about anything it wanted in terms of restrictions on smoking. I think that the same thing will happen with guns, and it will culminate in repeal of the second amendment.
> 
> I'm not sure how you draw a connection between my sentiments on guns and legalization of drugs. Guns, I think, have vast potential to harm people other than the person who possesses the firearm. Drugs, on the other hand, have little potential to harm anyone aside from the person who chooses to use the drug (and we can leave alone the notion of drugged driving and the like--that's nibbling on the edges instead of going to the meat). Drug prohibition, on the other hand, harms a lot of people, and it costs a lot of money. Junkies would be less apt to break into my home, or rob liquor stores, if drugs were legal and the price not artificially inflated by the black market. A lot of people who have died in Mexican narco wars would still be alive. Junkies would be less likely to die if they could be assured of the purity and potency of drugs, which would be assured if they were legal. Junkies would be less likely to be junkies if money that is now spent on drug prohibition was re-directed into treatment programs available on demand. I wouldn't have to pay for so many cops and courts and prisons with my tax dollars if drugs were legal. Would legalization increase use? I doubt it. Consider perhaps the effective anti-drug move ever made by the U.S. government: passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act in 1906. It killed the patent medicine industry virtually overnight, once the government required accurate labeling so that people knew they were ingesting potentially dangerous drugs. People aren't necessarily stupid (at least all of the time). The Harrison Act, which made drugs illegal, has proven much less effective. Why? Because some people like to get high and there is nothing in this world that can stop that--they'll risk prison or death to get high. That's why drug prohibition has failed.
> 
> I'm not sure how you are connecting Social Security with Medicare. I'll start with SS. If you are a millionaire, you don't need it, plan and simple. Because no one knows for sure at age 18 whether they will be a millionaire at age 65, we should have Social Security--it is, or should be I think, an insurance policy of sorts. Now, I'm not saying what we should do with the money that isn't distributed to retired rich folk. One possibility is to lower the Social Security tax. You see, it isn't necessarily a matter of re-distributing wealth--and that's what Social Security, to a certain extent, does anyway even as we speak. It's a matter of being fiscally smart, and giving money to people who don't need it is not fiscally smart. As for health care, it would be difficult to devise a more inefficient system than we have now. Anyone who spends a modicum of time looking at it can see that it is insane--health care costs too much, too much money is wasted on such things as dividends for people who own stock in health insurance companies and hardwood floors and marble pillars and saltwater fish tanks in hospitals themselves (NYT had a great quiz a few months back that involved side by side photographs of luxury hotels and hospitals and challenging the viewer to tell the difference). At the end of the day, everyone is getting care anyway--hospitals cannot refuse care in critical situations due to lack of insurance or ability to pay, and there is also Medicaid. Expanding Medicare to everyone would eliminate the inefficiencies--no more silly television advertisements telling you to get your butt scoped at Colonoscopies R Us instead of the Acme Insta-Probe Institute, no more private insurers taking a skim/profit. Medicare actually works--ask anyone who has it.
> 
> As for sheriffs, when I was growing up, the local sheriff was in with the mob and was eventually tried and sent to prison for corruption. Wouldn't have happened, I suspect, if the position were appointive. It turned out that there were plenty of signs of corruption, but no one to complain to who could have fired the guy or otherwise done something about it. Instead, it ended up in the hands of the FBI, and that, by necessity, takes a fairly long time. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, I look at Maricopa County, where Joe Arpaio has been an unmitigated disaster, but he keeps getting re-elected because he has a great election bandwagon that feeds on fear and appeals to people who like the idea of whoever broke into their house being forced to live in tents in the middle of the desert. Meanwhile, the county's insurance rates have skyrocketed because people keep winning federal lawsuits against the sheriff's office. Bottom line, elected officials are very sensitive to complaints about law enforcement, and they tend, in my experience, to deal with problems more swiftly and surely than voters do or can. If the sheriff isn't running the jail properly or responding to calls promptly, I want him gone now, not two years from now when the election rolls around and voters may or may not do something.
> 
> I don't know that I ever said the government has the right to tell you how much money you can make. Are you suggesting, somehow, that you shouldn't pay taxes? Where are you getting this notion that I've said the government should cap incomes?


You stated that people shouldn't be greedy and should "give a little back" to our fellow citizens. What's a little? Who determines this? You're effectively putting limits on what a person can earn by stating that once you've reached a certain level, you should pay even more and more otherwise you're being greedy. At what point has someone earned enough that you want to take away the surplus?

I think these are valid questions to ask once you start going down the road of giving a little back, calling people greedy, etc. I won't enter into a debate about guns with you. We have a second amendment but I'm all for sensible controls like limiting the number of purchases per month and closing loop holes in gun shows. There are sensible things that we can do short of banning people's right to bear arms.

I'm just wondering if you know how our medical system works? I'm in medicine and I'll tell you right now Medicare is a lousy payer and the only reason I can see Medicare patients is because I have other private insurance patients to offset the loss. In fact, when I see a Medicare patient, I'm actually losing money. Sure it works for the people on Medicare, until reimbursement is cut to the point where I just have to shut my doors to them. I already don't take Medicaid.

A prime example of market competition is Lasik surgery. When it first came out, it was very expensive. Due to competition and demand, there has been an increase in practitioners performing the procedure and the price has come down. People now shop around and consider cost as well as convenience. Medicare is fraught with fraud, waste and abuse and every year bleeds billions of dollars as a result. There's absolutely nothing efficient about the government as payer. Keep in mind, it's private practice that furnishes the actual care. Take a look at how the VA functions and you'll get a glimpse into government run and paid for healthcare.

I'll say this last thing; everyone bitches and moans about the cost of care and "needless testing" but when it's them or a loved one who is ill, they want every test known to man and every effort in order to come up with a diagnosis and cure. I've seen it over and over again.


----------



## Tiger

32rollandrock said:


> Not sure I can agree--not at all. I am not arguing that the feds don't do a lot more than they should, but if the majority of laws in the federal register were unconstitutional, the Supreme Court would have done something about it by now--there are surely enough lawyers to have pushed it. Perhaps like Dred Scott. An awful ruling, but the path toward certainty was the 13th amendment.
> 
> As for single malt, that's more wishful thinking than anything. Today is the first day of a 90-day biggest loser contest with a friend, so no alcohol for me for awhile. Besides exercising self restraint and discipline, I am sending him a pizza with pepperoni, sausage, double bacon, extra cheese and anchovies. It is a two-front war, after all.


The Supreme Court (itself a great beneficiary of the expansion of federal power) generally upholds these constitutional violations, because the mindset of the federal bureaucracy is the same. How did the Court rule in Korematsu? Schenck? Engel v. Vitale? AHCA? How did it judge post-Court-packing scheme New Deal programs? Why was it silent on the Sedition Act of 1798?

Notice how often the Court's rulings support the expansion of federal power, or at least, the attenuation of state power (which results in the latter). The Marshall Court was infamous for this, and very soon the notion of federalism was on life support.

One can lament what has happened to the roles of the federal legislature, executive, and judicial branches (as I surely do) or one can view them as positives, but it's damn near impossible to believe that they are constitutional.

While I urge you to victory in your contest, I sure hope you don't neglect to eat well (please replace the scotch with fine wine). Maybe a victory celebration at the Chicago Chop House is in order?


----------



## 32rollandrock

Tiger said:


> The Supreme Court (itself a great beneficiary of the expansion of federal power) generally upholds these constitutional violations, because the mindset of the federal bureaucracy is the same. How did the Court rule in Korematsu? Schenck? Engel v. Vitale? AHCA? How did it judge post-Court-packing scheme New Deal programs? Why was it silent on the Sedition Act of 1798?
> 
> Notice how often the Court's rulings support the expansion of federal power, or at least, the attenuation of state power (which results in the latter). The Marshall Court was infamous for this, and very soon the notion of federalism was on life support.
> 
> One can lament what has happened to the roles of the federal legislature, executive, and judicial branches (as I surely do) or one can view them as positives, but it's damn near impossible to believe that they are constitutional.
> 
> While I urge you to victory in your contest, I sure hope you don't neglect to eat well (please replace the scotch with fine wine). Maybe a victory celebration at the Chicago Chop House is in order?


If you don't like the way the Supreme Court rules, then change the constitution. That's what Lincoln et al did. Problem solved.

Mrs. 32 and I are more into sushi when we visit Chicago. Can't get decent fish where we live.


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> If you don't like the way the Supreme Court rules, then change the constitution. That's what Lincoln et al did. Problem solved.
> 
> Mrs. 32 and I are more into sushi when we visit Chicago. Can't get decent fish where we live.


Visiting Chicago for the sushi!!! Truly a sign of the end times!


----------



## Tiger

32rollandrock said:


> If you don't like the way the Supreme Court rules, then change the constitution. That's what Lincoln et al did. Problem solved.


I'm sorry - really don't know what you mean, nor do I know how "Lincoln changed the Constitution."

By the way, how can a president constitutionally "change the Constitution"?


----------



## MaxBuck

Tiger said:


> I like any president (or politician) who believes in a limited federal government, individual liberty, and laissez-faire economic principles ...


Yeah, me too. Now, where the hell do we find this fictitious creature?


----------



## MaxBuck

Tiger said:


> The Supreme Court (itself a great beneficiary of the expansion of federal power) generally upholds these constitutional violations, because the mindset of the federal bureaucracy is the same. How did the Court rule in Korematsu? Schenck? Engel v. Vitale? AHCA? How did it judge post-Court-packing scheme New Deal programs? Why was it silent on the Sedition Act of 1798?
> 
> Notice how often the Court's rulings support the expansion of federal power, or at least, the attenuation of state power (which results in the latter). The Marshall Court was infamous for this, and very soon the notion of federalism was on life support.
> 
> One can lament what has happened to the roles of the federal legislature, executive, and judicial branches (as I surely do) or one can view them as positives, but it's damn near impossible to believe that they are constitutional.
> 
> While I urge you to victory in your contest, I sure hope you don't neglect to eat well (please replace the scotch with fine wine). Maybe a victory celebration at the Chicago Chop House is in order?


You raise a lot of good points here, Tiger. I've thought for a long time that Brown vs. Board of Education yielded the necessary result, but with really unfortunate unintended consequences relative to life outside the racial-inequality arena. I admire Thurgood Marshall the man at the same time I shudder at the results of the SCOTUS changes he wrought.

It's a tough thing, providing for liberty for all while also recognizing states' rights (and let's go further - local governments' rights) to govern their citizenry without federal interference or mandates. I'm not smart enough to know how to fix it.


----------



## 32rollandrock

SG_67 said:


> You stated that people shouldn't be greedy and should "give a little back" to our fellow citizens. What's a little? Who determines this? You're effectively putting limits on what a person can earn by stating that once you've reached a certain level, you should pay even more and more otherwise you're being greedy. At what point has someone earned enough that you want to take away the surplus?
> 
> I think these are valid questions to ask once you start going down the road of giving a little back, calling people greedy, etc. I won't enter into a debate about guns with you. We have a second amendment but I'm all for sensible controls like limiting the number of purchases per month and closing loop holes in gun shows. There are sensible things that we can do short of banning people's right to bear arms.
> 
> I'm just wondering if you know how our medical system works? I'm in medicine and I'll tell you right now Medicare is a lousy payer and the only reason I can see Medicare patients is because I have other private insurance patients to offset the loss. In fact, when I see a Medicare patient, I'm actually losing money. Sure it works for the people on Medicare, until reimbursement is cut to the point where I just have to shut my doors to them. I already don't take Medicaid.
> 
> A prime example of market competition is Lasik surgery. When it first came out, it was very expensive. Due to competition and demand, there has been an increase in practitioners performing the procedure and the price has come down. People now shop around and consider cost as well as convenience. Medicare is fraught with fraud, waste and abuse and every year bleeds billions of dollars as a result. There's absolutely nothing efficient about the government as payer. Keep in mind, it's private practice that furnishes the actual care. Take a look at how the VA functions and you'll get a glimpse into government run and paid for healthcare.
> 
> I'll say this last thing; everyone bitches and moans about the cost of care and "needless testing" but when it's them or a loved one who is ill, they want every test known to man and every effort in order to come up with a diagnosis and cure. I've seen it over and over again.


I think that I was pretty clear. I said that millionaires and billionaires can afford to do without Social Security--that's the context of "give a little back." I also said that people whose retirement income are in the six figures can do without Social Security. I also suggested that such revisions could result in SS taxes being lowered.

As for guns, the second amendment prevents sensible controls. That's why it needs to be repealed, and it will be. It's inevitable.

Medicine wise, sorry--I just don't have much sympathy for doctors. As a group, MD's have among the highest incomes of any profession in this country--the MD's I know certainly aren't putzing around town in KIA's. Have you read Elizabeth Rosenthal's series on the cost of health care in the NYT? It's enough to make one's blood boil, and every word of it is the truth. It's not the MD's that are so bad necessarily, it's also the insurance companies and whole bunch more. My sister is a neo-natal care nurse. She is able to make a good living by working perhaps seven days a week. How? She gets paid double-time-and-a-half for working holidays and weekends, so she only works holidays and weekends. I have asthma. I use Albuterol, a common drug with no potential for abuse. I also used it as a kid, then my asthma went away, then only recently came back. Albuterol costs more--way more--than it did when I was a pre-teen. A single inhaler that sells over the counter in most other countries costs $50. Advair is even worse--$400 for a one month supply. For a drug with an expired patent that costs a fraction overseas of what we pay here.

Take this quiz: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/sunday-review/hotel-hospital-quiz.html

Outrageous.

We spend more on health care than any industrialized nation on the planet, yet the quality of our health care isn't close to the top. You don't see a problem with this?

But wait. There's more.

Got a call a few months ago from my father, who'd been shedding weight for more than two years--at 165 pounds, he's always been relatively lean. He was down to 123 pounds, with no loss of appetite. "They say I have cancer," he told me. "What kind?" I asked. "They don't know," he said. Turns out his doctor was a quack. My father didn't have cancer at all. He had an issue with his adrenal gland that was causing the weight loss--thank god I took a leave from work and flew out to help him get a new doctor (who promptly arrived at the correct diagnosis) and negotiate the system. Otherwise, he'd be freakin' dead. I went through three years of medical charts--there was so much quacking going on I thought I'd stumbled on a flock of ducks. My father has had other issues, joint pain, arthritis, with gall bladder issues and a scare with chest pains during the past year. At least six times in the year before we finally went elsewhere he was described in his charts as "well nourished." He was so thin you could see his veins pulsate from across a room, and they called him well-nourished. His chart showed resting pulses between 42 and 80; at one point, he put his weight on his walking cane to make the scale record a lesser weight so they'd pay attention to his complaints about weight loss (he'd complained several times, and his charts reflected this, but they never did anything to address it until he finally raised holy you-know-what), and the scale showed 118 pounds. They just wrote it down and kept on going--these mf'ers couldn't even get vital signs right, and when they saw something that couldn't possibly be right, they just wrote it down and kept on going. The quack who practically killed him at one point prescribed either morphine or marinol for my dad's joint pain, "depending on what's covered by insurance." He actually wrote that in the chart. My father has no insurance for drugs whatsoever and told the doctor that. Beyond that, morphine and marinol aren't even in the same drug classification. Not even close. Bottom line, my father was neither a human being nor a patient to this quack, or the other quacks the primary quack eventually called in, after my father got in the primary quack's face, so they sing a chorus of CYA together. My father was a widget moving on an assembly line, and if they couldn't solve his problem in 15 minutes, they weren't going to solve it at all. And doctors, even as they allow quacks like this to continue practicing medicine (the disciplinary and licensing system is controlled by doctors), whine about the high cost of malpractice insurance. Sheesh.

But wait. There's more.

I lost a good friend to lung cancer a year ago. She died two weeks after she arrived at the hospital. She suffered--a lot--for a month prior to finally going to the hospital because guess what? She had a low-paying job without insurance, and she was afraid of the bill. It wasn't the first time. Prior to that, she delayed going in to get stomach pain examined until she couldn't even stand up straight, it hurt so bad. Turned out she needed her gall bladder out. She had delayed so long that they had to delay surgery for a week to get the infection down, then they splayed her open. If she'd gone in earlier, it could have been handled in a day or two. Instead, she spent nearly a month in the hospital, and guess who paid the bill? You and I and every other taxpayer. Having no home or assets aside from a broken-down Chevy, she paid nothing. There was nothing to go after, but if she hadn't waited, they would have been no obligation to do anything for her. She had to wait until it was life threatening. The bill came to $40,000, and this was 20 years ago--you can imagine how much it would be today. How much fiscal sense does it make to force people to delay seeking help until conditions become life-threatening and extraordinarily expensive to address?

But wait. There's more. Before I switched doctors about six months ago, I had a money-grubbing primary care guy who performed every test on me that he could think of simply to get money. I had to see him once a year to get my asthma medicine prescription renewed, and I like to breathe. It would always cost hundreds of dollars. The final straw was when he said that this visit was on the house--then I got a bill for $400, and I have insurance. I called his office to ask WTF. Oh, the visit was free, but you have to pay for the lab work on the blood draw (surprise, surprise, he has an in-house lab). He'd engineered it so that he could squeeze every last penny out of his patients, of which he has no shortage. Why? Because he bills the insurance company and the patients don't worry about it, unless they have lousy insurance like me.

So don't ask me to feel sorry for doctors or other health care professionals. From my sister to the quack who "treated" my father to the greed monger who screwed me, they all seem to be doing just fine. I'm much more concerned about the rest of us, people like my friend who died last year and suffered needless pain and people like my wife and myself who keep seeing our health care costs rise with no accompanying increase in the quality of care. It's BS, quite frankly, and there is no acceptable excuse. Now, if you can devise a better system than Medicare for everyone, be my guest. But until you can, give everyone Medicare, because the "system" we have now is no system at all. It's a disgrace. And I really don't give a rip about what a PITA it is for health care professionals. If you don't like it, find another line of work because, quite honestly, I don't want to be treated by doctors who are in it for the money. I want doctors who have a passion for medicine first and a passion for money second.

Again, you should really read this stuff by Rosenthal. If you can dispute it, go ahead. Good luck.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/us/the-soaring-cost-of-a-simple-breath.html?_r=0

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/...s-leads-the-world-in-health-expenditures.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/03/health/as-hospital-costs-soar-single-stitch-tops-500.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/...th-costliest-in-the-world.html?pagewanted=all

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/health/for-medical-tourists-simple-math.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/health/patients-costs-skyrocket-specialists-incomes-soar.html


----------



## SG_67

^ No one is asking you to feel sorry for MD's. As for the "quack" who screwed you, I really don't get your point. What if he had missed something without the blood work or labs? What if you had elevated liver enzymes or some other condition which may have precluded you from taking your asthma medication. 

He's being a thorough professional and advocating for you. However, if you feel as though he's a cheating, money grubbing quack, go treat yourself next time.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Tiger said:


> I'm sorry - really don't know what you mean, nor do I know how "Lincoln changed the Constitution."
> 
> By the way, how can a president constitutionally "change the Constitution"?


It's called the 13th Amendment. And sorry, I misspoke--the president, of course, can't unilaterally change the constitution, but he can provide leadership to get it done, which is what happened in this case. My point is/was, the Dred Scott decision made a certain amount of sense under the constitution then in place. The solution was to amend the constitution. The parallel here is, if you don't like the size of the federal register, then change the constitution so that the regulations no longer pass constitutional muster. A good example is the recent Supreme Court decision on the EPA's authority to limit emissions from power plants, and before that, the decision upholding Obamacare (and I do not like Obamacare, just so we're clear). No offense, but I trust the Supreme Court more than someone on a fashion website to know whether something is unconstitutional or not.


----------



## 32rollandrock

So, you're saying you know more about what happened than I do? You were there? Perhaps you were hiding behind a curtain somewhere.

Just so you know, I'm not the only one who feels this way about this doctor. He was hauled before an arbitration board not so many years back by an HMO that accused him of running a patient mill. He prevailed, but that doesn't mean that he was right. HMO's don't take those kinds of steps unless there's something seriously amiss. Furthermore, I had to fight him to keep him from doing stuff that would get him money--for instance, he tried and tried and tried to get me to allow him to administer a flu shot. When a patient says no to a flu shot, that should be the end of it, but he kept trying to sell me one, like a car salesman pitching rust-proof undercoating.

But, then again, you know more than I do, even though you weren't there, because, well, you're in the health care field, so you know everything. Is that it?

Finished with those NYT pieces on the cost of health care? What did you think? Did you take the quiz? How'd you do?



SG_67 said:


> ^ No one is asking you to feel sorry for MD's. As for the "quack" who screwed you, I really don't get your point. What if he had missed something without the blood work or labs? What if you had elevated liver enzymes or some other condition which may have precluded you from taking your asthma medication.
> 
> He's being a thorough professional and advocating for you. However, if you feel as though he's a cheating, money grubbing quack, go treat yourself next time.


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> So, you're saying you know more about what happened than I do? You were there? Perhaps you were hiding behind a curtain somewhere.
> 
> Just so you know, I'm not the only one who feels this way about this doctor. He was hauled before an arbitration board not so many years back by an HMO that accused him of running a patient mill. He prevailed, but that doesn't mean that he was right. HMO's don't take those kinds of steps unless there's something seriously amiss. Furthermore, I had to fight him to keep him from doing stuff that would get him money--for instance, he tried and tried and tried to get me to allow him to administer a flu shot. When a patient says no to a flu shot, that should be the end of it, but he kept trying to sell me one, like a car salesman pitching rust-proof undercoating.
> 
> But, then again, you know more than I do, even though you weren't there, because, well, you're in the health care field, so you know everything. Is that it?
> 
> Finished with those NYT pieces on the cost of health care? What did you think? Did you take the quiz? How'd you do?


Then why go to him? Find a different doctor or just go out of pocket.

As for some quiz or NYT articles, no I didn't because I frankly don't care nor do I have the time. I'm living it everyday so forgive me for being somewhat myopic about it.

I know all about the cost of healthcare. Honestly, the way to decrease the cost is not to make it available to everyone, but to shift the cost more into the consumer. Shifting the cost will cause people to ask about cost and to ask questions. Maybe you should have asked if the blood work and labs were absolutely necessary. What if you had an ailment that went unfound?

So there you go. Is healthcare expensive? Damn right it is! Do you devalue what you do? I don't. I'm not the least bit embarrassed or ashamed of anything I do.

As for you guy who has been hauled up in front of some review board, whose fault is it if you keep going back to him?


----------



## Chouan

Curiously, most european countries have gone with a variety of the British model of national health insurance. The principle in Britain that was adopted was that everybody pays a contribution and that care was free at the point of use. If an individual preferred private medicine then they could have private medicine, but they would still pay the national insurance contribution. Although the Tories, from their ideological viewpoint, and I include Labour, as Tory-Lites in that, do tend to criticise the NHS as being inefficient, the basic principle is sound, and it works very well nearly all of the time. When it was introduced after WW2 the only people who argued that it was doomed to failure were people in the medical profession.


----------



## eagle2250

32rollandrock said:


> My choice of words wasn't good. I should have said "gotten over" instead of "forgot"--what I meant was, there are still plenty of people in the South who aren't jiggy with Lincoln. Of course, no one should ever forget the Civil War. As for Harding, you and Tiger seem to believe that other deeds can overcome any amount of scandal. Perhaps I am missing something. What, precisely, have I overlooked on Harding that you think is pertinent?


LOL. You are absolutely spot-on with your assessment of Southern perspectives on Lincoln and the Civil War. Many in the South, particularly the young bucks, are still fighting the civil war. Hell, who among us can claim to have lived in a southern state for any extended period of time and did not hear some drunken fool waving a confederate battle flag and shouting, "The South shall rise again!" While I respect my fellow citizens residing in more southern climes and have several southern friends we continue to regularly visit, they do have a tendency to get a little crazy over this subject.


----------



## Shaver

MaxBuck said:


> Yeah, me too. Now, where the hell do we find this fictitious creature?


Unfortunately Max, Noah neglected to include them on the Ark.

Hitch probably knows why. :rolleyes2:


----------



## tocqueville

Chouan said:


> Curiously, most european countries have gone with a variety of the British model of national health insurance. The principle in Britain that was adopted was that everybody pays a contribution and that care was free at the point of use. If an individual preferred private medicine then they could have private medicine, but they would still pay the national insurance contribution. Although the Tories, from their ideological viewpoint, and I include Labour, as Tory-Lites in that, do tend to criticise the NHS as being inefficient, the basic principle is sound, and it works very well nearly all of the time. When it was introduced after WW2 the only people who argued that it was doomed to failure were people in the medical profession.


I believe that it is true in France as well. People criticize the details of the system, but none argues for disbanding it.


----------



## Shaver

Chouan said:


> Curiously, most european countries have gone with a variety of the British model of national health insurance. The principle in Britain that was adopted was that everybody pays a contribution and that care was free at the point of use. If an individual preferred private medicine then they could have private medicine, but they would still pay the national insurance contribution. Although the Tories, from their ideological viewpoint, and I include Labour, as Tory-Lites in that, do tend to criticise the NHS as being inefficient, the basic principle is sound, and it works very well nearly all of the time. When it was introduced after WW2 the only people who argued that it was doomed to failure were people in the medical profession.


And a marvellously civilised system it is.

It is very comforting to recognise that, no mater how risky an evening's adventures may be, if you can limp into A&E then they will sew you back together again free of charge.

First rate.


----------



## eagle2250

tocqueville said:


> I don't think this is true at all. I know it's a talking point these days for conservatives in the press, but it's based on nothing. I mean, according to whom?


Indeed much of what I include in my Interchange postings are impressions formed from what I have heard on the evening news and yes, Fox News is one of the channels I surf. But I believe each of the "lame stream" media evening news anchors have echoed the very conclusions you question. Watching the ABC, CBS and Fox newscasts last evening, I recall all three arguably questioning the wisdom/sufficiency of President Obama's decision to send 300 Special Forces troops to Iraq to stem the present crisis. Are they all ultra conservatives? Not to be argumentative, but I believe even the most ardent liberal supporters of Barrack Obama are starting to question his capacity to lead. Just saying...


----------



## Mike Petrik

eagle2250 said:


> LOL. You are absolutely spot-on with your assessment of Southern perspectives on Lincoln and the Civil War. Many in the South, particularly the young bucks, are still fighting the civil war. Hell, who among us can claim to have lived in a southern state for any extended period of time and did not hear some drunken fool waving a confederate battle flag and shouting, "The South shall rise again!" While I respect my fellow citizens residing in more southern climes and have several southern friends we continue to regularly visit, they do have a tendency to get a little crazy over this subject.


I regret your pathetic circle of friends, Eagle. I have lived in the South (first North Carolina and now Georgia) for over 30 years and have never encountered such apocryphal cartoons. I have, on the other hand, encountered dozens of displaced northerners who greet their welcomers with rants about the South's shortcomings. Although Delta is ready when they are, they never seem to return home.


----------



## 32rollandrock

SG_67 said:


> Then why go to him? Find a different doctor* or just go out of pocket*.
> 
> As for some quiz or NYT articles, no I didn't because I frankly don't care nor do I have the time. I'm living it everyday so forgive me for being somewhat myopic about it.
> 
> I know all about the cost of healthcare. Honestly, the way to decrease the cost is not to make it available to everyone, but to shift the cost more into the consumer. Shifting the cost will cause people to ask about cost and to ask questions. Maybe you should have asked if the blood work and labs were absolutely necessary. What if you had an ailment that went unfound?
> 
> So there you go. Is healthcare expensive? Damn right it is! Do you devalue what you do? I don't. I'm not the least bit embarrassed or ashamed of anything I do.
> 
> As for you guy who has been hauled up in front of some review board, whose fault is it if you keep going back to him?


You really don't get it, do you? If I'd gone out of pocket it would have cost even more. And I submit that you won't read the articles, not even one, or take the quiz, which is a minute or so of your time, because you are afraid of the truth. You're not living it every day, you're making a living from it every day. Big difference.

Shift costs to the consumer? Are you freakin' insane? You understand, I presume, that the people who are charged the most for health care are the people without insurance. You understand, I hope, that a butt scope that costs, say, $5,000 if you don't have insurance costs, say, $3,000 if you do because insurance companies negotiate bulk discounts, like some sort of commodity trader or used car salesman. You understand that costs have already been shifted to the consumer. Case in point: In 1992, I had surgery on a finger. It required general anesthetic. I was in a cast for six weeks. My total out-of-pocket cost was $50, and the insurance I had at the time wasn't a Cadillac plan. Today, I'd pay many, many more times than that, on top of increased monthly premiums, and don't get me started on how much premiums have skyrocketed. And you say that more costs should be shifted to the consumer? How much more do you think I should have to pay? I already shop around. I already take half the dose of asthma medicine that I should because I can't afford the full dose. I also can't afford to get a butt scope, even with insurance, so I'm crossing my fingers instead, and if I turn out unlucky, guess who's going to pay for surgery and chemotherapy and, eventually, hospice care? The same people who paid for my friend who delayed treatment for her gall bladder until it was life threatening. And it'll cost a helluva lot more than a butt scope.

The cost of health care in the United States has skyrocketed in the past 25 years, far outstripping the rate of inflation. Where has all of this money gone? Tell me: Where has it gone? Before you pull an answer out of your you-know-what, read the linked articles, because they help explain it. You have time to cruise this forum and contribute, you have time to read the articles, but you won't do it, won't read even one, or take two minutes to take that quiz. I think you're afraid of the truth. I don't think that you can handle the truth. The articles I posted are well-researched stories about why health care costs so much more in the United States than it does anywhere else in the world, yet you won't take the time to read them. That speaks volumes, I think, about the openness of your mind. You say that you know all about the cost of health care. I submit that you do not. You know what you want to know, and you refuse to entertain the notion that you might actually learn something. You refuse to take the chance that something you believe might, just might, be untrue.

As for the guy who was hauled up to a review board, you know why he prevailed. He prevailed because doctors protect each other--you and I both know that's the truth, and if you dispute that, bring it. The HMO who went up against him knew that doctors protect each other, yet they still did it, which speaks volumes as to the strength of the case. "What if I had an ailment that went unfound?" As Wayne said to Garth, monkeys might fly out of my butt. Yeah, there is always that chance, but I was relatively young (in my 40s) and showing zero symptoms of anything amiss. And you think that spending $800 or so (which is what the total bill came to, including what my insurance company paid) was a wise expenditure? And keep in mind, he wanted to do this once a year. Come on. I was there. You were not. Give me some credit here.


----------



## 32rollandrock

eagle2250 said:


> LOL. You are absolutely spot-on with your assessment of Southern perspectives on Lincoln and the Civil War. Many in the South, particularly the young bucks, are still fighting the civil war. Hell, who among us can claim to have lived in a southern state for any extended period of time and did not hear some drunken fool waving a confederate battle flag and shouting, "The South shall rise again!" While I respect my fellow citizens residing in more southern climes and have several southern friends we continue to regularly visit, they do have a tendency to get a little crazy over this subject.


I re-watched all of The Civil War, Ken Burns' most excellent documentary, over Memorial Day weekend. Shelby Foote made, essentially, the same point, recalling how he had once told a descendant of either Stonewall Jackson or Nathan Bedford Forrest (can't recall exactly which) that the war had transformed two men: Their ancestor and Lincoln. The remark was not well received. The descendant's opinion of Lincoln was not high.


----------



## tocqueville

eagle2250 said:


> Indeed much of what I include in my Interchange postings are impressions formed from what I have heard on the evening news and yes, Fox News is one of the channels I surf. But I believe each of the "lame stream" media evening news anchors have echoed the very conclusions you question. Watching the ABC, CBS and Fox newscasts last evening, I recall all three arguably questioning the wisdom/sufficiency of President Obama's decision to send 300 Special Forces troops to Iraq to stem the present crisis. Are they all ultra conservatives? Not to be argumentative, but I believe even the most ardent liberal supporters of Barrack Obama are starting to question his capacity to lead. Just saying...


Obama's policies are not above scrutiny, and I have my doubts. I just am very suspicious of the "meme" that "we appear weak, and our allies yearn for a muscular America to provide leadership." I've seldom heard any evidence to back up that or really any other allegations about what our allies do or do not want/like. Are we talking about polls? Interviews with prominent opinion leaders?

I don't question Obama's capacity to lead and frankly applaud him for his conservatism with respect to going to war. He dares ask what no one in the previous administration asked: Say we go in, what then? What happens after we topple the dictator? But perhaps, though, what we want/need is some happy medium between his conservatism and W.'s rash radicalism. And at some point we have to shed the ghosts of the past. I've been hearing lately about how Cyrus Vance was the real dove in the Carter Administration, and he couldn't stop wringing his hands because he thought he had blood on them from Vietnam.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Mike Petrik said:


> I regret your pathetic circle of friends, Eagle. I have lived in the South (first North Carolina and now Georgia) for over 30 years and have never encountered such apocryphal cartoons. I have, on the other hand, encountered dozens of displaced northerners who greet their welcomers with rants about the South's shortcomings. Although Delta is ready when they are, they never seem to return home.


The thing I hate about the South is the heat and humidity. The thing I love about the South is fried pork rinds, the big honkers with hog hair still sticking out like so many whiskers. Nothing screams Dixie like a big ol' pork rind the size of a dinner plate.:devil:


----------



## eagle2250

Mike Petrik said:


> I regret your pathetic circle of friends, Eagle. I have lived in the South (first North Carolina and now Georgia) for over 30 years and have never encountered such apocryphal cartoons. I have, on the other hand, encountered dozens of displaced northerners who greet their welcomers with rants about the South's shortcomings. Although Delta is ready when they are, they never seem to return home.


Not looking for a fight, or perhaps debate is a better way of phrasing it, but having spent from three months to four years on assignments in Mississippi, Texas, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina and Florida, I'll stand by my impressions. I'm happy with my circle of friends and we all must, at least grudgingly, accept our circle of acquaintances. However, I must ask, have you never attended an SEC football game?

PS: Please don't misunderstand me. My intent is not to slam the South. Indeed, I quite enjoyed the times I lived there!


----------



## Mike Petrik

eagle2250 said:


> However, I must ask, have you never attended an SEC football game?


Of course, quite a few. Great fun. Never heard a reference to the south rising again though. Just Ole Miss's football team. 
That said, I've gone to more ACC games being a Duke alum.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Tiger said:


> Of course, there's another problem - the amendment was "ratified" by states that were not in the Union. Congress forced the ratification condition on seceded states in order for them to be eligible to rejoin the Union. Since when can a state _*not* _in the federal union have the power to ratify an amendment to the constitution of that Union? Could Rhode Island have ratified a proposed amendment in, say, 1790, before the state even joined the Union? Of course not! Didn't this happen in 1868?
> 
> I hold that the Fourteenth Amendment was never legally and constitutionally ratified...


If I recall correctly, Congress refused to seat representatives from the southern states until they ratified; Congress did not hold their membership in the Union in such abeyance.


----------



## gaseousclay

tocqueville said:


> I don't question Obama's capacity to lead and frankly applaud him for his conservatism with respect to going to war. He dares ask what no one in the previous administration asked: Say we go in, what then? What happens after we topple the dictator?


smells like Mogadishu all over again


----------



## 32rollandrock

SG_67 said:


> Then why go to him? Find a different doctor or just go out of pocket.
> 
> As for some quiz or NYT articles, no I didn't because I frankly don't care nor do I have the time. I'm living it everyday so forgive me for being somewhat myopic about it.
> 
> I know all about the cost of healthcare. Honestly, the way to decrease the cost is not to make it available to everyone, but to shift the cost more into the consumer. Shifting the cost will cause people to ask about cost and to ask questions. Maybe you should have asked if the blood work and labs were absolutely necessary. What if you had an ailment that went unfound?
> 
> So there you go. Is healthcare expensive? Damn right it is! Do you devalue what you do? I don't. I'm not the least bit embarrassed or ashamed of anything I do.
> 
> As for you guy who has been hauled up in front of some review board, whose fault is it if you keep going back to him?


One other thing.

Since you say that consumers should be informed, should I have access to the national health care provider database? It is, after all, compiled and maintained with my tax dollars. Wouldn't that go a long way toward helping consumers make informed decisions? If I should not have access, why? Isn't denying access just another example of doctors protecting doctors to the detriment of consumers?


----------



## tocqueville

gaseousclay said:


> smells like Mogadishu all over again


Meaning?


----------



## gaseousclay

tocqueville said:


> Meaning?


meaning we send troops in the midst of civil unrest and lives are lost. this isn't our fight anymore


----------



## Tiger

32rollandrock said:


> It's called the 13th Amendment. And sorry, I misspoke--the president, of course, can't unilaterally change the constitution, but he can provide leadership to get it done, which is what happened in this case. My point is/was, the Dred Scott decision made a certain amount of sense under the constitution then in place. The solution was to amend the constitution. The parallel here is, if you don't like the size of the federal register, then change the constitution so that the regulations no longer pass constitutional muster. A good example is the recent Supreme Court decision on the EPA's authority to limit emissions from power plants, and before that, the decision upholding Obamacare (and I do not like Obamacare, just so we're clear). No offense, but I trust the Supreme Court more than someone on a fashion website to know whether something is unconstitutional or not.


Not sure why you need to resort to condescension. Perhaps that works in your social circle, but I find it insulting and sophomoric.

As I've written earlier, the federal government and the many tentacles attached to it would never allow for a constitutional amendment emanating from Congress that weakens its power in any way. (Some of the Antifederalists warned about the potentiality of this occurring - political power always seems to increase, never decrease.) The only hope is for the states to call a convention (as per Article V) for this purpose; in fact, there is a political movement underway for this very purpose. We'll see how it goes...

Your faith in the Supreme Court is misplaced, as has been proven too many times. Sometimes, a person on a "fashion website" actually knows what he's talking about!


----------



## 32rollandrock

Tiger said:


> Not sure why you need to resort to condescension. Perhaps that works in your social circle, but I find it insulting and sophomoric.
> 
> As I've written earlier, the federal government and the many tentacles attached to it would never allow for a constitutional amendment emanating from Congress that weakens its power in any way. (Some of the Antifederalists warned about the potentiality of this occurring - political power always seems to increase, never decrease.) The only hope is for the states to call a convention (as per Article V) for this purpose; in fact, there is a political movement underway for this very purpose. We'll see how it goes...
> 
> Your faith in the Supreme Court is misplaced, as has been proven too many times. Sometimes, a person on a "fashion website" actually knows what he's talking about!


Didn't intend to be condescending. Our legal process as well as separation of powers is built on checks and balances as well as an adversarial system. There plenty of smart folks, many of them practicing lawyers, out there like you who have tried to persuade the Supremes on Obamacare and EPA authority and myriad other matters going back to the 18th century. Due respect, but when you lose at the Supreme Court, it generally means that you are wrong. Sorry, but I don't see any way around that. What is the alternative for you--or anyone else--to simply decree what the truth is? The thing is, everyone has an equal shot in a courtroom, and if a court gets it wrong, there is an avenue of appeal. Can you think of a better way to safeguard rights and liberty? I can't, but I'm open to suggestions if you have one.

No, I'm not impressed when you or anyone says "The Supreme Court is wrong." Who are you to say who is right? It smacks of a kid on the playground throwing a tantrum when things don't go his way.

"Our courts have their faults, as does any human institution, but in this country our courts are the great levellers, and in our courts all men are created equal."

That's from To Kill A Mockingbird, Chapter 20, from Atticus Finch's address to the jury. I wish I had the whole quote, because it is very much worth repeating.

Are you seriously suggesting we should throw out the American system of jurisprudence? If you are not, then how can you quarrel with the notion that if you don't like the way that the Supremes rule, then the solution is to change the constitution?

Like Mr. Finch, I am not saying that courts are infallible. They do get some things wrong--off the top of my head, Bowers v. Hardwick comes to mind. Then again, the court righted itself with Lawrence v. Texas. You had said that the courts have gotten it wrong since the Great Depression, and I find that difficult to fathom.


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> One other thing.
> 
> Since you say that consumers should be informed, should I have access to the national health care provider database? It is, after all, compiled and maintained with my tax dollars. Wouldn't that go a long way toward helping consumers make informed decisions? If I should not have access, why? Isn't denying access just another example of doctors protecting doctors to the detriment of consumers?


Whatever state you are in, you are able to access that states Department of Professional Licensure or Regulation, or whatever name the agency goes by in a given state, and look up the providers license and see if they have any disciplinary action against them, pending and/or what the offense was. You can see if they are currently licensed as well.

the Federal database is more for Medicare/Medicaid but you're also able to get this information as it is a matter of public record. Law suits against certain physicians are a matter of public record. If a physician has been sued too many times, chances are no one is going to give him/her privileges so the market takes care of that.

The ultimate decision, however, is yours! If one does not get a good vibe or feel from a particular physician just go to another.

There are plenty of resources the public is able to access in order to determine the quality of the healthcare provider in question.


----------



## 32rollandrock

SG_67 said:


> Whatever state you are in, you are able to access that states Department of Professional Licensure or Regulation, or whatever name the agency goes by in a given state, and look up the providers license and see if they have any disciplinary action against them, pending and/or what the offense was. You can see if they are currently licensed as well.
> 
> the Federal database is more for Medicare/Medicaid but you're also able to get this information as it is a matter of public record. Law suits against certain physicians are a matter of public record. If a physician has been sued too many times, chances are no one is going to give him/her privileges so the market takes care of that.
> 
> The ultimate decision, however, is yours! If one does not get a good vibe or feel from a particular physician just go to another.
> 
> There are plenty of resources the public is able to access in order to determine the quality of the healthcare provider in question.


Due respect, sir, but that is absolute horse manure. I speak from experience.

The database I am talking about is a federally maintained database that contains every malpractice settlement or verdict ever entered against any physician as well as any disciplinary action ever taken by any state. It is about much, much more than just Medicaid and Medicare (this is due, I believe, to a merger of previously separate databases in 2013), and it is absolutely off limits to the public, thanks to the American Medical Association lobby. This is the database's website address--https://www.npdb.hrsa.gov/--and, don't trust me, here is what it says about the secrecy under which it exists:

*The Data Bank is prohibited by law from disclosing information on a specific practitioner, provider, or supplier to the general public. However, there is statistical data available to the public that does not identify individuals. See About Statistical Data for more information. You may also request information in a form that does not identify any particular health care organization or practitioner for research purposes.

*From the website, here is the database's purpose:*

The NPDB is primarily an alert or flagging system intended to facilitate a comprehensive review of the professional credentials of health care practitioners, health care entities, providers, and suppliers; the information from the Data Bank should be used in conjunction with, not in replacement of, information from other sources.
*
The point is, this is the single best way for anyone to find out whether a doctor is a quack, a drunk, a junkie or just plain incompetent. And yet the public, which pays to maintain this database, cannot see it. Why?

I assure you: You cannot get this information as a matter of public record. There simply is no substitute. For one thing, when a malpractice claim settles, it is generally with confidentiality provisions, and states vary as to whether the public has a right to know the amount of settlements, which is crucial information. The database contains amounts. It also contains, I believe, records of in-house discipline (I could be mistaken in this regard--because the database is top-secret, I can't be sure). For another, there are approximately one gazillion courts where malpractice suits can be filed. There is no practical way for anyone to check all of those courts. Some do not even have online records, and virtually none have anything other than docket entries available online, so you cannot know the substance of complaints or defenses unless you travel to the courthouse in question. For another thing, there are 50 state licensing boards. In theory, they are supposed to share information. In practice, that is not always the case. And what is public in one state is confidential in another, so how much you are allowed to know about a doctor depends on where you live.

I am familiar with a physician who was sanctioned in Michigan for not providing prescribed psychotropic medication to mentally ill inmates in a jail. Somehow, that information didn't make its way to other states, including Illinois and Indiana, where he failed to report the Michigan discipline when his license was renewed (he ultimately surrendered his license in Illinois after a slew of successful malpractice suits, but that's another story--it took two deaths, an amputated leg and several years). Information on the Michigan sanctions was certainly in the national database, but it didn't do any good because it's secret. In fact, no two states had the same information on this doctor, who was licensed in a half-dozen or so states,and it went beyond disciplinary history. Some states had information on malpractice settlements/cases that others did not. I checked this guy out, and it took the better part of a day to piece together his record from various state boards--the information was typically cursory, and so it required phone calls and written record requests to learn vital details.

The theory is, the public is supposed to trust third parties that have access to the database--hospitals, mainly--to use the database to make appropriate decisions on hiring doctors or granting privileges. It's my health, and it's my money that was used to create and maintain that database. Why shouldn't I be allowed to see it? Why shouldn't I be able to run my doctor's name through that database to see if he's been hopscotching around states/hospitals like a kid-diddling priest? I don't want to go by "vibes," as you say, or trust others or rely on the marketplace. I want access to the information so that I can make up my own mind. That secret database contains the best available information, and I think that I should have a right to the best available information when it's my health at stake. The notion that there are plenty of resources available to the public to determine the quality of a healthcare provider is simply not true--there may be plenty of resources, but they are not the most accurate or reliable resources, not even close. As an aside, you are, I presume, aware that malpractice insurance is not mandatory, at least where I live. Think about that: You can be fined for driving a car without insurance but it is perfectly legal to engage in brain surgery with no insurance whatsoever. Where I live--and where you live--attorneys must tell the public whether they have malpractice insurance. Doctors do not. How crazy is that?

It's a yes or no question: Should the public be able to use that database as a reliable one-stop-shop check to help ensure that the person they entrust with their health is the best person available? And if the answer is no, I want to know why you think the answer is no. I don't think that's too much to ask. Thanks.


----------



## Tiger

Mike Petrik said:


> If I recall correctly, Congress refused to seat representatives from the southern states until they ratified; Congress did not hold their membership in the Union in such abeyance.


As per historian Forrest McDonald:

"At that point Congress changed the rules somewhat. Heretofore, ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment had been a necessary qualification for readmission to statehood, but not a sufficient one, which is to say that after the non-government of a state ratified, Congress would consider readmission. An act passed June 25, 1868, altered the procedure. The preamble of the act declared that several southern states had "framed constitutions of State government which are republican"; article one enacted that each of them "shall be entitled and admitted to representation in Congress as a State of the Union" automatically when they ratified the amendment. Obviously, however, they were not states at the time they ratified, for if they were, they would already have been "entitled" to representation."


----------



## Tiger

32rollandrock said:


> Didn't intend to be condescending. Our legal process as well as separation of powers is built on checks and balances as well as an adversarial system. There plenty of smart folks, many of them practicing lawyers, out there like you who have tried to persuade the Supremes on Obamacare and EPA authority and myriad other matters going back to the 18th century. Due respect, but when you lose at the Supreme Court, it generally means that you are wrong. Sorry, but I don't see any way around that. What is the alternative for you--or anyone else--to simply decree what the truth is? The thing is, everyone has an equal shot in a courtroom, and if a court gets it wrong, there is an avenue of appeal. Can you think of a better way to safeguard rights and liberty? I can't, but I'm open to suggestions if you have one.
> 
> No, I'm not impressed when you or anyone says "The Supreme Court is wrong." Who are you to say who is right? It smacks of a kid on the playground throwing a tantrum when things don't go his way.
> 
> "Our courts have their faults, as does any human institution, but in this country our courts are the great levellers, and in our courts all men are created equal."
> 
> That's from To Kill A Mockingbird, Chapter 20, from Atticus Finch's address to the jury. I wish I had the whole quote, because it is very much worth repeating.
> 
> Are you seriously suggesting we should throw out the American system of jurisprudence? If you are not, then how can you quarrel with the notion that if you don't like the way that the Supremes rule, then the solution is to change the constitution?
> 
> Like Mr. Finch, I am not saying that courts are infallible. They do get some things wrong--off the top of my head, Bowers v. Hardwick comes to mind. Then again, the court righted itself with Lawrence v. Texas. You had said that the courts have gotten it wrong since the Great Depression, and I find that difficult to fathom.


I wish you wouldn't distort what I wrote. It will be the surest way to end this dialogue if such tactics continue, as will the condescension that flows so freely from your fingertips.

Just because the Supreme Court makes a ruling doesn't mean it is correct. Dozens - hundreds? - of cases have been decided, and many of all political persuasions complain about the results. The notion that the Court's rulings are nearly always correct is ludicrous.

In addition, Article III of the Constitution *does not* give the Court the power to decide the constitutionality of federal and state actions. Nor does it have the power to "interpret" (rather than "apply") the document, or to legislate. The notion that the framers of the Constitution desired a handful of unelected judges appointed by politically-driven presidents (based on the judges' own political biases) to determine the meaning of the Constitution is absurd!

There is no "avenue of appeal" after a Supreme Court ruling. One simply has to wait for the politics of the Court to change before challenging - a prime example of the Court's politicization!

No tantrums from me; I simply recognize what is, and what should never be.

You seem to view the court system as something celestial, when it consists merely of people...as flawed as us.

When did I say we should "throw out the American system of jurisprudence"? Please stop putting words in my mouth, and creating strawmen. As I've said previously, the problem is a lack of adherence to the Constitution. Thus, the solution is for all branches of federal, state, and local government to follow the Constitution. I am aware that will never happen, and neither will the mystical changes to which you refer.

If you believe that every Supreme Court ruling since the Depression is accurate, i.e., is based on fidelity to the Constitution, we haven't grounds for discussion. Just the fact that there are contradictory decisions made by the Court in that time period proves my point.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Tiger said:


> As per historian Forrest McDonald:
> 
> "At that point Congress changed the rules somewhat. Heretofore, ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment had been a necessary qualification for readmission to statehood, but not a sufficient one, which is to say that after the non-government of a state ratified, Congress would consider readmission. An act passed June 25, 1868, altered the procedure. The preamble of the act declared that several southern states had "framed constitutions of State government which are republican"; article one enacted that each of them "shall be entitled and admitted to representation in Congress as a State of the Union" automatically when they ratified the amendment. Obviously, however, they were not states at the time they ratified, for if they were, they would already have been "entitled" to representation."


Yes, I stand corrected. Yet, the question does not strike me as quite that straightforward. For instance, the assumption that the Southern states had ceased to be members of the Union that had to be readmitted is a question that is at least as open as the 14th Amendment's validity. Certainly Lincoln's position that these States could not leave the Union is not compatable with the need for re-admittance.

In any case, there is a difference between characterizing something as invalid versus improperly validated. The Supreme Court has made it clear that the question of an Amendment's validation and adoption rests entirely with Congress, meaning that its judgment stands even if wrong. While this may seem odd, it is a necessary feature of our constitutional architecture. Roe v Wade, Dredd Scott, and Lawrence v Texas were all almost certainly wrongly decided, and arguably abuses of power, but in each case they created the law of the land nonetheless.

The bottom line is that I think you have convinced me that the 14th Amendment was adopted via an improper ratification process, but Congress's certification of such adoption is effective nonetheless. Thus, I think that there is no doubt that the 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution just as I think Roe v Wade is plainly the law of the land, notwithstanding the rather manifest incorrectness of the decisions of both Congress and the Supreme Court.


----------



## Tiger

Mike Petrik said:


> Yes, I stand corrected. Yet, the question does not strike me as quite that straightforward. For instance, the assumption that the Southern states had ceased to be members of the Union that had to be readmitted is a question that is at least as open as the 14th Amendment's validity. Certainly Lincoln's position that these States could not leave the Union is not compatable with the need for re-admittance. In any case, there is a difference between characterizing something as invalid versus improperly validated. The Supreme Court has made it clear that the question of validation rests entirely with Congress, meaning that its judgment stands even if wrong. While this may seem odd, it is a necessary feature of our constitutional architecture. Roe v Wade, Dredd Scott, and Lawrence v Texas were all almost certainly wrongly decided, and arguably abuses of power, but they created the law of the land in each case nonetheless.
> The bottom line is that I think you have convinced me that the 14th Amendment was adopted via an improper ratification process, but Congress's certification of such adoption is effective nonetheless. Thus, I think that the 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution just as I think Roe v Wade is law, even though the decisions of both Congress and the Supreme Court were incorrect.


"The Supreme Court has made it clear that the question of validation rests entirely with Congress, meaning that its judgment stands even if wrong."

But where did the Supreme Court get the power to decide that Congress is the final arbiter of constitutional amendments? Such a power is not in Article III of the Constitution. I sense an enormous problem here, one that affects both federalism and the very nature of the federal compact between the states.

First, it's an autocratic notion that one part of the federal government would have the power to determine the powers of the other parts of the federal government. The fox guarding the henhouse! Second, states would be powerless vis a vis the federal government, because Congress would be free to decide when an amendment - even one limiting the powers of that very same Congress - was valid and when it wasn't.

Seems to me that the proverbial "fix is in" - ultimately, the federal government makes all decisions regarding the power of the federal government. I am certain that the eleven states (and later, NC and RI) that originally ratified the Constitution did not think that they were agreeing to a pact that eviscerated their powers...

P.S. - Thank you, Mike, for always being so dignified and courteous in your posts, and for always taking the time to explain your positions, without ever a hint of superiority. It is appreciated!


----------



## Mike Petrik

Tiger said:


> "The Supreme Court has made it clear that the question of validation rests entirely with Congress, meaning that its judgment stands even if wrong."
> 
> But where did the Supreme Court get the power to decide that Congress is the final arbiter of constitutional amendments? Such a power is not in Article III of the Constitution. I sense an enormous problem here, one that affects both federalism and the very nature of the federal compact between the states.
> 
> First, it's an autocratic notion that one part of the federal government would have the power to determine the powers of the other parts of the federal government. The fox guarding the henhouse! Second, states would be powerless vis a vis the federal government, because Congress would be free to decide when an amendment - even one limiting the powers of that very same Congress - was valid and when it wasn't.
> 
> Seems to me that the proverbial "fix is in" - ultimately, the federal government makes all decisions regarding the power of the federal government. I am certain that the eleven states (and later, NC and RI) that originally ratified the Constitution did not think that they were agreeing to a pact that eviscerated their powers...
> 
> P.S. - Thank you, Mike, for always being so dignified and courteous in your posts, and for always taking the time to explain your positions, without ever a hint of superiority. It is appreciated!


Thanks. I do try to be courteous, though am no doubt imperfect from time to time. 
The questions you pose are excellent, and I'll try to give the best answers I can. The Constitution allocates powers between the federal government and the states (technically, it assigns limited powers to the federal government and acknowledges the remainder to the states); and it allocates federal governmental powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Although it is inevitable that controversies would arise as to the boundaries of these powers and allocations, the Constitution is not explict as to how such controversies were to be adjudicated. As we all know it did not take long for the Supreme Court to arrogate that responsibility to itself in Marbury v Madison. Marbury is a fascinating case for many reasons. First, I would submit that the Framers did not anticipate Marbury, but it was correct nonetheless. Plainly, Constitutional controversies required resolution, and armed battles between state militia and US soldiers or between Congressmen and Cabinet members would hardly be sensible. Indeed, Justice Marshall's decision was no more controversial than any other Supreme Court decision (meaning the losing party was unhappy, but that's about it). There was no great outcry among the Constitution's framers (though Jefferson was critical) because "judicial review" was consistent with the Constitution's architecture. That said, although I am confident that Marbury was correctly decided, I also believe that because its implications were not adequately anticipated by the Framers, the Framers provided the executive and legislative branches with inadequate "checks" against the judicial branch, which is the chief reason that the Supreme Court has been able to so consistently overreach in its decisions (Roe v Wade being the perfect example). (The dynamic interplay between the "necessary and proper clause" and the commerce clause is very similar in my view in that together their broad wording ascribed to Congress far more power than the Framers likely intended or anticipated, but sometimes words are more expansive than intentions, and in such cases the words usually govern, and should.) Finally, regarding the amendment process the Supreme Court has actually behaved responsibly by deferring to Congress on a matter that had been explicitly delegated to it.


----------



## 32rollandrock

We are actually agreeing here. When I said avenue of appeal, I meant lower courts--I was not as clear as I should have been. The Supreme Court, of course, has the final word.

Let's make sure we're clear: You are suggesting that the Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the right to decide whether a federal action is constitutional? If so, I do not believe that is correct. I think that the Supreme Court does have that power. Now, the Supreme Court may or may not have the authority to decide whether a state action is OK. It depends on whether a federal constitutional issue is at stake. For example, a state supreme court would have the final say over whether a set of documents withheld by a city council must be made public under a state's public-records law (as you might have guessed, I'm pretty passionate about public records)--there's no federal constitutional issue at stake. I think they could weigh in if the records are federal. I also say that the U.S. Supreme Court could weigh in if a city council passed an ordinance stating that the Lord's Prayer had to be recited before city council meetings.

I agree that courts are fallible, thus the example of the Supreme Court reversing itself on sodomy laws--diametrically opposed decisions. There is also my good friend Atticus Finch. But what you seemed to be saying, at least what I heard, is, look at this huge book of regulations that's been growing since the 1930s because the Supreme Court can't get it right. My guess is, there have been plenty of attempts by lawyers to do something about that, and they have failed--a contradictory decision here and there is one thing, a pattern, which I believe to be the case in this context, is something else entirely. Therein my conclusion that if you don't like the court's handiwork, change the constitution.

And apologies for my previous tone. It was too strong.



Tiger said:


> I wish you wouldn't distort what I wrote. It will be the surest way to end this dialogue if such tactics continue, as will the condescension that flows so freely from your fingertips.
> 
> Just because the Supreme Court makes a ruling doesn't mean it is correct. Dozens - hundreds? - of cases have been decided, and many of all political persuasions complain about the results. The notion that the Court's rulings are nearly always correct is ludicrous.
> 
> In addition, Article III of the Constitution *does not* give the Court the power to decide the constitutionality of federal and state actions. Nor does it have the power to "interpret" (rather than "apply") the document, or to legislate. The notion that the framers of the Constitution desired a handful of unelected judges appointed by politically-driven presidents (based on the judges' own political biases) to determine the meaning of the Constitution is absurd!
> 
> There is no "avenue of appeal" after a Supreme Court ruling. One simply has to wait for the politics of the Court to change before challenging - a prime example of the Court's politicization!
> 
> No tantrums from me; I simply recognize what is, and what should never be.
> 
> You seem to view the court system as something celestial, when it consists merely of people...as flawed as us.
> 
> When did I say we should "throw out the American system of jurisprudence"? Please stop putting words in my mouth, and creating strawmen. As I've said previously, the problem is a lack of adherence to the Constitution. Thus, the solution is for all branches of federal, state, and local government to follow the Constitution. I am aware that will never happen, and neither will the mystical changes to which you refer.
> 
> If you believe that every Supreme Court ruling since the Depression is accurate, i.e., is based on fidelity to the Constitution, we haven't grounds for discussion. Just the fact that there are contradictory decisions made by the Court in that time period proves my point.


----------



## vpkozel

Mike Petrik said:


> The Supremacy Clause does not serve to import the Bill of Rights to the States. The reason is that the Bill of Rights by its terms was a limitation on the federal government only. It took the adoption of the 14th Amendment to change that, and only because the Supreme Court eventually interpreted the due process clause's reference to liberty as referencing those liberties secured in the Bill of Rights.


That is not true. The Supremacy Clause absolutely does import the BOR to the states. Otherwise, they would be useless.

Here is Madison from the Convention:

"[_1:293; Madison, 18 June_]
X All laws of the particular States contrary to the Constitution or laws of the United States to be utterly void; and the better to prevent such laws being passed, the Governour or president of each state shall be appointed by the General Government and shall have a negative upon the laws about to be passed in the State of which he is Governour or President

https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a6_2s5.html"

By ratifying the Constitution, the states accepted the limitations contained within. Anything not expressly mentioned in the Constitution is supposed to revert to the states or the people. But if the Feds pass a law on that same subject, it would be given precedence in the courts.

Can you find me an example where the USSC has ruled that a state law or Constitution could violate the US Constitution?


----------



## vpkozel

Tiger said:


> It is clear that you do not understand the concepts of federalism, the purpose of the bill of rights, or the efficacy of the "supremacy clause." If your understanding of this clause is correct, every single state power would have been eliminated at the whim of the federal government. Just what the overwhelmingly number of the Founders and Framers would have wanted, right? Yeah, sure...
> 
> Maybe _*you*_ should read the Tenth Amendment?


What exactly does this mean to you?

[_1:293; Madison, 18 June_]
X *All laws of the particular States contrary to the Constitution or laws of the United States to be utterly void*; and the better to prevent such laws being passed, the Governour or president of each state shall be appointed by the General Government and shall have a negative upon the laws about to be passed in the State of which he is Governour or President

https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a6_2s5.html


----------



## vpkozel

Tiger said:


> I wish you wouldn't distort what I wrote. It will be the surest way to end this dialogue if such tactics continue, as will the condescension that flows so freely from your fingertips.
> 
> Just because the Supreme Court makes a ruling doesn't mean it is correct. Dozens - hundreds? - of cases have been decided, and many of all political persuasions complain about the results. The notion that the Court's rulings are nearly always correct is ludicrous.
> 
> In addition, Article III of the Constitution *does not* give the Court the power to decide the constitutionality of federal and state actions. Nor does it have the power to "interpret" (rather than "apply") the document, or to legislate. The notion that the framers of the Constitution desired a handful of unelected judges appointed by politically-driven presidents (based on the judges' own political biases) to determine the meaning of the Constitution is absurd!
> 
> There is no "avenue of appeal" after a Supreme Court ruling. One simply has to wait for the politics of the Court to change before challenging - a prime example of the Court's politicization!
> 
> No tantrums from me; I simply recognize what is, and what should never be.
> 
> You seem to view the court system as something celestial, when it consists merely of people...as flawed as us.
> 
> When did I say we should "throw out the American system of jurisprudence"? Please stop putting words in my mouth, and creating strawmen. As I've said previously, the problem is a lack of adherence to the Constitution. Thus, the solution is for all branches of federal, state, and local government to follow the Constitution. I am aware that will never happen, and neither will the mystical changes to which you refer.
> 
> If you believe that every Supreme Court ruling since the Depression is accurate, i.e., is based on fidelity to the Constitution, we haven't grounds for discussion. Just the fact that there are contradictory decisions made by the Court in that time period proves my point.


Here is Article 3, section 2, with the relevant section bolded:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. *In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

*And here are Mr. Madison's thoughts on the subject:

Mr. Madison observed that unless inferior tribunals were dispersed throughout the Republic with _final_ jurisdiction in _many_ cases, appeals would be multiplied to a most oppressive degree; that besides, an appeal would not in many cases be a remedy. What was to be done after improper Verdicts in State tribunals obtained under the biassed directions of a dependent Judge, or the local prejudices of an undirected jury? To remand the cause for a new trial would answer no purpose. To order a new trial at the supreme bar would oblige the parties to bring up their witnesses, tho' ever so distant from the seat of the Court.* An effective Judiciary establishment commensurate to the legislative authority, was essential. A Government without a proper Executive & Judiciary would be the mere trunk of a body without arms or legs to act or move.

*Furthermore, the right to Judicial review was established in Marbury vs. Madison, and since most of the principal Founders were directly involved in the case, I think it is safe to assume that they knew what they were doing. So, I am not quite sure how you arrive at your conclusions.

Finally, there is no court to appeal to after the USSC rules, but there most certainly is a remedy to overrule them.


----------



## Tiger

vpkozel said:


> What exactly does this mean to you?
> 
> [_1:293; Madison, 18 June_]
> X *All laws of the particular States contrary to the Constitution or laws of the United States to be utterly void*; and the better to prevent such laws being passed, the Governour or president of each state shall be appointed by the General Government and shall have a negative upon the laws about to be passed in the State of which he is Governour or President.


The "supremacy clause" states, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

Thus, the federal government is supreme within its sphere. But what is its "sphere"? Clearly, the power to infringe on the right to bear arms is not in its sphere, both because no such power exists in Article I of the Constitution, and because the Second Amendment to that Constitution expressly prohibits Congress from infringing on the right to bear arms.

So, a state certainly would have the power to do so (as long as its own state constitution did not prohibit it), because a state making a "gun control" law would not conflict with any power of Congress or be contrary in any way to its power, because no such congressional power exists!

Please understand that the bill of rights was designed to be a limitation of federal power, not a grant of additional power.

P.S. - I am not a gun control advocate, but I am a Constitution advocate...


----------



## Tiger

vpkozel said:


> Here is Article 3, section 2, with the relevant section bolded:
> 
> In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. *In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
> 
> *And here are Mr. Madison's thoughts on the subject:
> 
> Mr. Madison observed that unless inferior tribunals were dispersed throughout the Republic with _final_ jurisdiction in _many_ cases, appeals would be multiplied to a most oppressive degree; that besides, an appeal would not in many cases be a remedy. What was to be done after improper Verdicts in State tribunals obtained under the biassed directions of a dependent Judge, or the local prejudices of an undirected jury? To remand the cause for a new trial would answer no purpose. To order a new trial at the supreme bar would oblige the parties to bring up their witnesses, tho' ever so distant from the seat of the Court.* An effective Judiciary establishment commensurate to the legislative authority, was essential. A Government without a proper Executive & Judiciary would be the mere trunk of a body without arms or legs to act or move.
> 
> *Furthermore, the right to Judicial review was established in Marbury vs. Madison, and since most of the principal Founders were directly involved in the case, I think it is safe to assume that they knew what they were doing. So, I am not quite sure how you arrive at your conclusions. Finally, there is no court to appeal to after the USSC rules, but there most certainly is a remedy to overrule them.


You claim that the "right" of judicial review was established in Marbury v. Madison (1803). Three points:

1) "Most of the principal Founders" were not involved in this case. This is absolutely false - was Washington? Franklin? Mason? Henry? Dickinson? Sherman? Lee? The list is too long to continue...

2) Nowhere in Article III of the United States Constitution is the power to decide the constitutionality of executive or legislative actions given to the Supreme Court. The great tragedy of Marbury v. Madison was that the Court usurped a power it did not initially have - you said as much yourself when you said that this decision gave the court the power of judicial review! *Think about it - the Court gave itself a power that was not in the Constitution*. What's next, the Enabling Acts? So, I'll write it again - we become an autocracy (and destroy the principle of federalism) when one part of the federal government would have the power to determine its own powers or the powers of the other parts of the federal government. The fox guarding the henhouse! 

3) Chief Justice John Marshall (1801-1835) was an ardent nationalist (unlike most of the Founding Fathers, who believed in limited federal power) who ultimately created a constitution-violating legacy of greatly expanded power in all three federal branches, at the expense of the states (and their people). Marshall's views ran counter to the "Principles of 1776" and the constitutional precepts agreed to at the Philadelphia Convention in 1787. They also ran counter to the arguments made by Marshall himself in the Virginia ratifying convention in 1788! Maybe those justices aren't perfect after all...


----------



## Tiger

vpkozel said:


> Can you find me an example where the USSC has ruled that a state law or Constitution could violate the US Constitution?


Again, a state passing a gun control law or a law restricting speech (prior to the advent of the concept of "incorporation") would not violate the Constitution because Congress has no such power to do either of the above.

How could a state pass a law that violates a power that Congress simply doesn't have?


----------



## Tiger

Mike Petrik said:


> Thanks. I do try to be courteous, though am no doubt imperfect from time to time.
> The questions you pose are excellent, and I'll try to give the best answers I can. The Constitution allocates powers between the federal government and the states (technically, it assigns limited powers to the federal government and acknowledges the remainder to the states); and it allocates federal governmental powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Although it is inevitable that controversies would arise as to the boundaries of these powers and allocations, the Constitution is not explict as to how such controversies were to be adjudicated. As we all know it did not take long for the Supreme Court to assign that responsibility to itself in Marbury v Madison. Marbury is a fascinating case for many reasons. First, I would submit that the Framers did not anticipate Marbury, but it was correct nonetheless. Plainly, Constitutional controversies required resolution, and armed battles between state militia and US soldiers or between Congressmen and Cabinet members would hardly be sensible. Indeed, Justice Marshall's decision was no more controversial than any other Supreme Court decision (meaning the losing party was unhappy, but that's about it). There was no great outcry among the Constitution's framers (though Jefferson was critical) because "judicial review" was consistent with the Constitution's architecture. That said, although I am confident that Marbury was correctly decided, I also believe that because its implications were not adequately anticipated by the Framers, the Framers provided the executive and legislative branches with inadequate "checks" against the judicial branch, which is the chief reason that the Supreme Court has been able to so consistently overreach in its decisions (Roe v Wade being the perfect example). (The dynamic interplay between the "necessary and proper clause" and the commerce clause is very similar in my view in that together their broad wording ascribed to Congress far more power than the Framers likely intended or anticipated, but sometimes words are more expansive than intentions, and in such cases the words usually govern, and should.) Finally, regarding the amendment process the Supreme Court has actually behaved responsibly by deferring to Congress on a matter that had been explicitly delegated to it.


A great post, and I agree with most of the latter half. But (and you knew that was coming!):

Please see my remarks about _Marbury _v. _Madison _(1803) above; I can amplify if desired.

Constitutional controversies _*do *_require resolution. Why not have the principal creators and ratifiers of the Constitution - the *States* that entered into the compact! - resolve the controversies? Why are we all so comfortable letting the federal government resolve its difficulties without the say of the entities that created the darn federal government in the first place? Certainly, Jefferson thought this; he wrote about it in the Kentucky Resolutions.

_*Here's the problem*_: A politician with great political biases (the chief executive of the federal government) nominates other people with great political biases to be on the Supreme Court (the judicial branch of that same federal government), who are then approved by senators with great political biases (part of the legislature of that same federal government). Then, that legislature and executive pass laws or perform actions that violate the Constitution, and when (if) a challenge takes place, the sole self-appointed arbiter (thanks, Mr. Marshall!) and a part of that same federal government (the Supreme Court) rules that the legislation or action is not a constitutional violation, because, as we all have seen, when is federal power ever really limited? Certainly not by the federal government itself. Quite unsurprising; has all the veracity and integrity of a Stalinist show trial! OK, that was too darn bombastic, but I trust you see my point...

Regarding your final remark, Mike - Article V states that the responsibility of amending the Constitution belongs to the States and Congress in the first method prescribed, while the second method listed is entirely a power of the States. Not sure why you believe that amending the Constitution is "explicitly delegated" to Congress.


----------



## Mike Petrik

vpkozel said:


> That is not true. The Supremacy Clause absolutely does import the BOR to the states. Otherwise, they would be useless.
> 
> Here is Madison from the Convention:
> 
> "[_1:293; Madison, 18 June_]
> X All laws of the particular States contrary to the Constitution or laws of the United States to be utterly void; and the better to prevent such laws being passed, the Governour or president of each state shall be appointed by the General Government and shall have a negative upon the laws about to be passed in the State of which he is Governour or President
> 
> https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a6_2s5.html"
> 
> By ratifying the Constitution, the states accepted the limitations contained within. Anything not expressly mentioned in the Constitution is supposed to revert to the states or the people. But if the Feds pass a law on that same subject, it would be given precedence in the courts.
> 
> Can you find me an example where the USSC has ruled that a state law or Constitution could violate the US Constitution?


First, please read carefully the Bill of Rights and its history. The first ten amendments are by their very terms restricitions on the federal government only. For that reason they did not trump any state laws via the Supremacy Clause. The protections secured by the Bill of Rights are extended to state action only by the 14th Amendment. Prior to the adoption of that Amendment, no one ever even remotely speculated that the Bill of Rights encumbered state legislatures. 
Second, your last question is very peculiar. The vast majority of laws struck down as violative of the First Amendment have been state or local laws or ordinances, though not until the adoption of the 14th Amendment.
Finally, the supremacy clause means only that in the case of common authority to pass laws, a federal law will trump state law. The Supremacy Clause has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights.


----------



## Tiger

32rollandrock said:


> The Supreme Court, of course, has the final word...Let's make sure we're clear: You are suggesting that the Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the right to decide whether a federal action is constitutional? If so, I do not believe that is correct. I think that the Supreme Court does have that power...
> 
> I agree that courts are fallible, thus the example of the Supreme Court reversing itself on sodomy laws--diametrically opposed decisions. There is also my good friend Atticus Finch. But what you seemed to be saying, at least what I heard, is, look at this huge book of regulations that's been growing since the 1930s because the Supreme Court can't get it right. My guess is, there have been plenty of attempts by lawyers to do something about that, and they have failed--a contradictory decision here and there is one thing, a pattern, which I believe to be the case in this context, is something else entirely. Therein my conclusion that if you don't like the court's handiwork, change the constitution.
> 
> And apologies for my previous tone. It was too strong.


Apology accepted, and thank you for being so gracious!

I think my posts above addressed your points here, but if not, please let me know, and I'll do so more lucidly.


----------



## Tiger

Mike Petrik said:


> First, please read carefully the Bill of Rights and its history. The first ten amendments are by their very terms restricitions on the federal government only. For that reason they did not trump any state laws via the Supremacy Clause. The protections secured by the Bill of Rights are extended to state action only by the 14th Amendment. Prior to the adoption of that Amendment, no one ever even remotely speculated that the Bill of Rights encumbered state legislatures.
> Second, your last question is very peculiar. The vast majority of laws struck down as violative of the First Amendment have been state or local laws or ordinances, though not until the adoption of the 14th Amendment.
> Finally, the supremacy clause means only that in the case of common authority to pass laws, a federal law will trump state law. The Supremacy Clause has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights.


This is correct, both exactly and succinctly.


----------



## vpkozel

Just to make sure that I understand you gentlemen correctly, both of you contend that a state law is not bound by the US Constitution, correct?


----------



## Tiger

vpkozel said:


> Just to make sure that I understand you gentlemen correctly, both of you contend that a state law is not bound by the US Constitution, correct?


Neither Mike Petrik nor I have ever said such a thing.

To paraphrase the Tenth Amendment, the powers that are not given to the federal government by the Constitution are left to the States and their people (unless the Constitution expressly denies States that particular power).

The Bill of Rights are not delegated powers; they are simply an explicit (to add to the implicit powers reserved to the States because of the specified, limited, enumerated powers in Article I section 8) attempt to restrict/restrain federal power.


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> Due respect, sir, but that is absolute horse manure. I speak from experience.
> 
> The database I am talking about is a federally maintained database that contains every malpractice settlement or verdict ever entered against any physician as well as any disciplinary action ever taken by any state. It is about much, much more than just Medicaid and Medicare (this is due, I believe, to a merger of previously separate databases in 2013), and it is absolutely off limits to the public, thanks to the American Medical Association lobby. This is the database's website address--https://www.npdb.hrsa.gov/--and, don't trust me, here is what it says about the secrecy under which it exists:
> 
> *The Data Bank is prohibited by law from disclosing information on a specific practitioner, provider, or supplier to the general public. However, there is statistical data available to the public that does not identify individuals. See About Statistical Data for more information. You may also request information in a form that does not identify any particular health care organization or practitioner for research purposes.
> 
> *From the website, here is the database's purpose:*
> 
> The NPDB is primarily an alert or flagging system intended to facilitate a comprehensive review of the professional credentials of health care practitioners, health care entities, providers, and suppliers; the information from the Data Bank should be used in conjunction with, not in replacement of, information from other sources.
> *
> The point is, this is the single best way for anyone to find out whether a doctor is a quack, a drunk, a junkie or just plain incompetent. And yet the public, which pays to maintain this database, cannot see it. Why?
> 
> I assure you: You cannot get this information as a matter of public record. There simply is no substitute. For one thing, when a malpractice claim settles, it is generally with confidentiality provisions, and states vary as to whether the public has a right to know the amount of settlements, which is crucial information. The database contains amounts. It also contains, I believe, records of in-house discipline (I could be mistaken in this regard--because the database is top-secret, I can't be sure). For another, there are approximately one gazillion courts where malpractice suits can be filed. There is no practical way for anyone to check all of those courts. Some do not even have online records, and virtually none have anything other than docket entries available online, so you cannot know the substance of complaints or defenses unless you travel to the courthouse in question. For another thing, there are 50 state licensing boards. In theory, they are supposed to share information. In practice, that is not always the case. And what is public in one state is confidential in another, so how much you are allowed to know about a doctor depends on where you live.
> 
> I am familiar with a physician who was sanctioned in Michigan for not providing prescribed psychotropic medication to mentally ill inmates in a jail. Somehow, that information didn't make its way to other states, including Illinois and Indiana, where he failed to report the Michigan discipline when his license was renewed (he ultimately surrendered his license in Illinois after a slew of successful malpractice suits, but that's another story--it took two deaths, an amputated leg and several years). Information on the Michigan sanctions was certainly in the national database, but it didn't do any good because it's secret. In fact, no two states had the same information on this doctor, who was licensed in a half-dozen or so states,and it went beyond disciplinary history. Some states had information on malpractice settlements/cases that others did not. I checked this guy out, and it took the better part of a day to piece together his record from various state boards--the information was typically cursory, and so it required phone calls and written record requests to learn vital details.
> 
> The theory is, the public is supposed to trust third parties that have access to the database--hospitals, mainly--to use the database to make appropriate decisions on hiring doctors or granting privileges. It's my health, and it's my money that was used to create and maintain that database. Why shouldn't I be allowed to see it? Why shouldn't I be able to run my doctor's name through that database to see if he's been hopscotching around states/hospitals like a kid-diddling priest? I don't want to go by "vibes," as you say, or trust others or rely on the marketplace. I want access to the information so that I can make up my own mind. That secret database contains the best available information, and I think that I should have a right to the best available information when it's my health at stake. The notion that there are plenty of resources available to the public to determine the quality of a healthcare provider is simply not true--there may be plenty of resources, but they are not the most accurate or reliable resources, not even close. As an aside, you are, I presume, aware that malpractice insurance is not mandatory, at least where I live. Think about that: You can be fined for driving a car without insurance but it is perfectly legal to engage in brain surgery with no insurance whatsoever. Where I live--and where you live--attorneys must tell the public whether they have malpractice insurance. Doctors do not. How crazy is that?
> 
> It's a yes or no question: Should the public be able to use that database as a reliable one-stop-shop check to help ensure that the person they entrust with their health is the best person available? And if the answer is no, I want to know why you think the answer is no. I don't think that's too much to ask. Thanks.


I'm not arguing about the NPDB. What I'm saying is that if you're really curious and want to know, the information is readily available. God forbid someone has to do a little footwork to advocate for themselves.


----------



## MaxBuck

Tiger said:


> The Bill of Rights are not delegated powers; they are simply an explicit (to add to the implicit powers reserved to the States because of the specified, limited, enumerated powers in Article I section 8) attempt to restrict/restrain federal power.


I'll disagree only to the following extent: I think the Bill of Rights was intended primarily for the purpose of guaranteeing rights of individuals against ALL government power, not just that of the federal government. That distinction perhaps speaks to vpkozel's comment (or maybe it really doesn't).


----------



## 32rollandrock

SG_67 said:


> I'm not arguing about the NPDB. What I'm saying is that if you're really curious and want to know, the information is readily available. God forbid someone has to do a little footwork to advocate for themselves.


One hundred percent untrue. And I can prove it. From personal experience.

I take it that you believe the database should be public, then. It was a yes-or-no question.


----------



## SG_67

^It's not government's job to due your due diligence for you. Violations of a practitioners license and any disciplinary action are already public record. Malpractice suits and/or investigations that do not conclude with any prosecution, whether criminal or of one's license to practice, are not and should not be made public like that. 

This is a government database with private information on it. The practitioner has rights as well. From what I've read, you're probably not a fan of the NSA activities that were brought to light over the last year? 

Imagine if employers could ask the NSA to make public phone calls by so and so or to and from some number when deciding on hiring a new person or disciplinary action against an employee. 

The government, with its expansive and far reaching power and ability to collect information, much safeguard that information as well. To open up the NPDB to public scrutiny would also throw the doors wide open for a number of government lists as well. 

Here's what I recommend: Do a search of your states registry of disciplinary action against a particular practitioner. Lawsuits don't necessarily mean much; a physician could get sued if he/she simply gave a second opinion in a case. He just happened to be involved in the chain of practitioners in a case. If a physician is sued enough, he/she is dropped by their malpractice carrier and they lose privileges at the hospital. 

There are dozens of private and public sources for you to do your homework.


----------



## 32rollandrock

It was a yes or no question. You still refuse to answer.

Folks on this forum are fond of saying "You're entitled to your opinion but not your facts." In the case of accurate information on doctors, patients aren't entitled to facts under the current system. They are entitled to cursory, tip-of-the-iceberg stuff that appears on state medical board websites that don't come close to telling the full story of whether a doctor is good or bad. Anyone who knows what is in the database compared with the skimpy information that is publicly available--and it is most assuredly skimpy--knows this.

There is a simple way to stay off that database: Don't harm or kill patients. No one has a right to practice medicine. It is a privilege that is earned, and with privilege comes responsibility. There should also be accountability. Unfortunately, that is all too often not the case when it comes to doctors. It would be so easy to fix this so that what you say--consumers should do their homework--would actually be possible: Make that database public. Then consumers really could make informed decisions about healthcare providers.

Why are you so afraid of making that database public? Are you saying that a bad doctor's need to make a living outstrips the public's right to be protected from bad doctors?



SG_67 said:


> ^It's not government's job to due your due diligence for you. Violations of a practitioners license and any disciplinary action are already public record. Malpractice suits and/or investigations that do not conclude with any prosecution, whether criminal or of one's license to practice, are not and should not be made public like that.
> 
> This is a government database with private information on it. The practitioner has rights as well. From what I've read, you're probably not a fan of the NSA activities that were brought to light over the last year?
> 
> Imagine if employers could ask the NSA to make public phone calls by so and so or to and from some number when deciding on hiring a new person or disciplinary action against an employee.
> 
> The government, with its expansive and far reaching power and ability to collect information, much safeguard that information as well. To open up the NPDB to public scrutiny would also throw the doors wide open for a number of government lists as well.
> 
> Here's what I recommend: Do a search of your states registry of disciplinary action against a particular practitioner. Lawsuits don't necessarily mean much; a physician could get sued if he/she simply gave a second opinion in a case. He just happened to be involved in the chain of practitioners in a case. If a physician is sued enough, he/she is dropped by their malpractice carrier and they lose privileges at the hospital.
> 
> There are dozens of private and public sources for you to do your homework.


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> It was a yes or no question. You still refuse to answer.
> 
> Folks on this forum are fond of saying "You're entitled to your opinion but not your facts." In the case of accurate information on doctors, patients aren't entitled to facts under the current system. They are entitled to cursory, tip-of-the-iceberg stuff that appears on state medical board websites that don't come close to telling the full story of whether a doctor is good or bad. Anyone who knows what is in the database compared with the skimpy information that is publicly available--and it is most assuredly skimpy--knows this.
> 
> There is a simple way to stay off that database: Don't harm or kill patients. No one has a right to practice medicine. It is a privilege that is earned, and with privilege comes responsibility. There should also be accountability. Unfortunately, that is all too often not the case when it comes to doctors. It would be so easy to fix this so that what you say--consumers should do their homework--would actually be possible: Make that database public. Then consumers really could make informed decisions about healthcare providers.
> 
> Why are you so afraid of making that database public? Are you saying that a bad doctor's need to make a living outstrips the public's right to be protected from bad doctors?


Perhaps a good place to start is to ask you what kind of information you seek. You say tip of the ice berg but what else would you like to know?

I'm all for public safety but to read your comments it would appear that there is widespread malpractice and poor medical care being rendered by unethical and/or incompetent practitioners.

There is such a thing as word of mouth, publicly available information as well as any other number of private and public resources available. You seem fixated on a government database.

Tell me your criteria for how a doctor is good or bad?


----------



## Tiger

MaxBuck said:


> I'll disagree only to the following extent: I think the Bill of Rights was intended primarily for the purpose of guaranteeing rights of individuals against ALL government power, not just that of the federal government. That distinction perhaps speaks to vpkozel's comment (or maybe it really doesn't).


Your heart is in the right place, MaxBuck. Rather than simply providing a URL containing the history of the "bill of rights" that will undoubtedly support what Mike and I have written, I'll summarize this way:

1) By 1776, as each colony anticipated its own (not collective) independence from Britain (and war had begun the prior year), colonies began creating their own constitutions. Virginia led the way - the legendary George Mason was the primary author of the Virginia Constitution and the Virginia Declaration of Rights (a "bill of rights"). Both served as models for other colonies, and in effect were statements of each colony's independence.
2) By June of 1776, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia puts forth a resolution to the Continental Congress, one that would declare all of the colonies free and independent states. The resolution is approved on July 2nd - the real Independence Day! Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence (providing the rationale and written officiality of the Congress' decision) is approved two days later.
4) The Articles of Confederation - the first constitution of the several States - are created and become operable in 1777 but not officially ratified until 1781; the new States retain nearly complete sovereignty in this "firm league of friendship" and thus their rights and those of their citizens are preserved.
5) The revision of the Articles, which eventually wound up as a new constitution, created a more powerful general ("federal") government (but _*nothing *_like today's monstrosity). States would retain all powers not specifically granted to this new general government (the power-sharing arrangement known as "federalism").
6) Many feared that the new general government would become too powerful (really smart and prescient men!), and these "Antifederalists" fought for revisions to the new constitution. One successful revision was the addition of ten amendments - the "bill of rights" - that made explicit the implied protections/liberties that were possessed by the people. By the way, James Madison opposed such a "bill of rights"; he believed it to be redundant.
7) So, *States and their citizens already had these rights and liberties*; it was the fear of federal encroachment on them that led to the attempt via amendment to restrain/restrict the powers of the federal government.

Hope that made sense!


----------



## Mike Petrik

MaxBuck said:


> I'll disagree only to the following extent: I think the Bill of Rights was intended primarily for the purpose of guaranteeing rights of individuals against ALL government power, not just that of the federal government. That distinction perhaps speaks to vpkozel's comment (or maybe it really doesn't).


Max, you are incorrect. As Tiger correctly points out the Bill of Rights was absolutely not intended to restrict states. This is not in dispute among any historians or constitutional scholars. Its application to states today is only because the Supreme Court in a series of decisions over many decades in the 20th century determined that the "liberty" protected from state law by the 14th Amendment's due process clause "incorporated" those liberties identified in the Bill of Rights. Now, some scholars take issue with the propriety of this so-called "incorporation" doctrine, but no scholars suggest that the Bill of Rights on its own applies to states.

I generally agree with Tiger's post above, except it is not quite true that states already recognized these liberties. Indeed, some states had broad restrictions on freedom of the speech, press or religion. But the Framers were perfectly comfortable with states having the power to restrict these liberties, since they viewed states as closer to the people and therefore more easily checked via democratic processes. In that respect it is absolutely correct that the Framers were far more skeptical of federal power. State restrictions on Bill of Rights type liberties tended to relax gradually in the first part of the 19th century, but even in the 20th century the vast majority of laws struck down as violative of one of the first ten amendments were state or local laws, not federal.


----------



## Mike Petrik

vpkozel said:


> Just to make sure that I understand you gentlemen correctly, both of you contend that a state law is not bound by the US Constitution, correct?


No, to further amplify Tiger's correct observation -- the Constitution binds and limits both the states and the federal government. It is not a creature of the federal government as such, but a constitution entered into by the states to create a federal government with limited powers. Any powers not allocated to the federal government essentially remained with the states. Some of the powers granted to the federal government were necessarily vague, such as the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. Notwithstanding these potentially expansive warrants, the Bill of Rights was adopted to ensure that the federal government could not enact laws that restrict certain individual liberties. This limitation did not apply to states, which remained able to restrict such liberties until the Supreme Court determined that such liberties are protected from state action via the 14th Amendment's due process clause.


----------



## Tiger

Mike Petrik said:


> I generally agree with Tiger's post above, except it is not quite true that states already recognized these liberties. Indeed, some states had broad restrictions on freedom of the speech, press or religion. But the Framers were perfectly comfortable with states having the power to restrict these liberties, since they viewed states as closer to the people and therefore more easily checked via democratic processes.


You are absolutely right, Mike. In my zeal to be concise, I failed to be precise. I should have said that the States and their people were free to protect or restrict liberties. Some States were more restrictive than others, and the people of those States had remedies to ameliorate that, if they wanted to do so.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Tiger said:


> A great post, and I agree with most of the latter half. But (and you knew that was coming!):
> 
> Please see my remarks about _Marbury _v. _Madison _(1803) above; I can amplify if desired.
> 
> Constitutional controversies _*do *_require resolution. Why not have the principal creators and ratifiers of the Constitution - the *States* that entered into the compact! - resolve the controversies? Why are we all so comfortable letting the federal government resolve its difficulties without the say of the entities that created the darn federal government in the first place? Certainly, Jefferson thought this; he wrote about it in the Kentucky Resolutions.
> 
> _*Here's the problem*_: A politician with great political biases (the chief executive of the federal government) nominates other people with great political biases to be on the Supreme Court (the judicial branch of that same federal government), who are then approved by senators with great political biases (part of the legislature of that same federal government). Then, that legislature and executive pass laws or perform actions that violate the Constitution, and when (if) a challenge takes place, the sole self-appointed arbiter (thanks, Mr. Marshall!) and a part of that same federal government (the Supreme Court) rules that the legislation or action is not a constitutional violation, because, as we all have seen, when is federal power ever really limited? Certainly not by the federal government itself. Quite unsurprising; has all the veracity and integrity of a Stalinist show trial! OK, that was too darn bombastic, but I trust you see my point...
> 
> Regarding your final remark, Mike - Article V states that the responsibility of amending the Constitution belongs to the States and Congress in the first method prescribed, while the second method listed is entirely a power of the States. Not sure why you believe that amending the Constitution is "explicitly delegated" to Congress.


You are basically making the argument in favor of the nullification doctrine, which holds that states, rather than the US Supreme Court, have the final power to determine whether a federal law is constitutional. Volumes have been written on this theory and it would be wholly impractical for us to try to discuss (letter alone resolve) the issue in this kind of forum. I will say that the theory is by no means crazy or obviously wrong, but what is clear is that it has lost as a practical matter. I would note that the Constitution's silence on the matter arguably gives license to both the federal courts and the states to resolve the constitutionality of a federal law, but if so the Supremacy Clause would seem to break the tie pretty neatly. In the end, most of the arguments favoring nullification are grounded less in the constitution as such, but more in the policy argument you advance, which is that the national government's ability to determine the boundaries of its own powers seems incompatible with the checks and balances one would expect out of a federal constitution. At the same time the idea that each state gets to determine its own understanding of federal powers seems even more unworkable. It is important to note that while the defeat of nullification in favor of judicial review seems to arrogate more power to the national government, the checks and balances internal to that government is critical in application. Congress does not get to determine the lawfulness of its own laws, though again that is not made explicit in the Constitution. By that power resting in the Judiciary Branch Congress's power is circumscribed. The bottom line is that the Constitution is simply not explicit as to how constitutional controversies should be resolved. This leaves ample room for disagreement of course, but Marbury v Madison is now as entrenched as nullification is disapproved. The discomfort of Jefferson, who did not meaningfully participate in the Constitution's drafting, stands in telling contrast with the writings of Madison, the document's principal architect. In my view Marbury v Madison is the right legal answer, but certainly nullification has been advanced by plenty of smart people.

As for Article 5, I do not agree that the second method arrogates the amendment power entirely to the States. Congress is the common denominator in both methods in that even under the second method it has the exclusive responsibility of calling the Convention necessary for an amendment's proposal. I believe all the Supreme Court is saying is that the determination of whether the predicate state acts necessary to implicate that responsibility have been satisfied must therefore also be the exclusive responsibility of Congress. This seems to me to be a reasonable conclusion, and superior to the federal judiciary instead assigning that responsibility to itself.


----------



## Tiger

Mike Petrik said:


> You are basically making the argument in favor of the nullification doctrine, which holds that states, rather than the US Supreme Court, have the final power to determine whether a federal law is constitutional. Volumes have been written on this theory and it would be wholly impractical for us to try to discuss (letter alone resolve) the issue in this kind of forum. I will say that the theory is by no means crazy or obviously wrong, but what is clear is that it has lost as a practical matter. I would note that the Constitution's silence on the matter arguably gives license to both the federal courts and the states to resolve the constitutionality of a federal law, but if so the Supremacy Clause would seem to break the tie pretty neatly. In the end, most of the arguments favoring nullification are grounded less in the constitution as such, but more in the policy argument you advance, which is that the national government's ability to determine the boundaries of its own powers seems incompatible with the checks and balances one would expect out of a federal constitution. At the same time the idea that each state gets to determine its own understanding of federal powers seems even more unworkable. It is important to note that while the failure of nullification seems to arrogate more power to the national government, the checks and balances internal to that government is critical in application. Congress does not get to determine the lawfulness of its own laws, though again that is not made explicit in the Constitution. By that power resting in the Judiciary Branch Congress's power is circumscribed. The bottom line is that the Constitution is simply not explicit as to how constitutional controversies should be resolved. This leaves ample room for disagreement of course, but Marbury v Madison is now as entrenched as nullification is disapproved. The discomfort of Jefferson, who did not meaningfully participate in the Constitution's drafting, stands in telling contrast with the writings of Madison, the document's principal architect. In my view Marbury v Madison is the right legal answer notwithstanding Jefferson's discomfort, but certainly nullification has been advanced by plenty of smart people.
> 
> As for Article 5, I do not agree that the second method arrogates the amendment power entirely to the States. Congress is the common denominator in both methods in that even under the second method it has the exclusive responsibility of calling the Convention necessary for an amendment's proposal. I believe all the Supreme Court is saying is that the determination of whether the predicate state acts necessary to implicate that responsibility have been satisfied must therefore also be the exclusive responsibility of Congress. This seems to me to be a reasonable conclusion, and superior to the federal judiciary instead assigning that responsibility to itself.


Not making the case for nullification in this instance (but I probably would in a different context!), but rather that the States could, for instance, call a convention either collectively where all attend or within each State. They could then decide as to what the Constitution (that they created) means. Any federal laws deemed "unconstitutional" would be abrogated, and the States could even clarify any aspects that were nebulous, to alleviate subsequent disputes. The decision would be corporate (majority? two-thirds? three-fourths?), not by individual States.

Regarding Article V: Once Congress calls for a convention to amend the Constitution, and decides on the mode of ratification, the second method completely belongs to the States. Again, I apologize for not being as precise as I should have been, but I think it's clear that in the latter mode, the States are by far the dominant power in the process.

Finally, I really do believe that States should determine if the amendment process has been executed properly. The States created the Constitution, and the Constitution created the Congress and Court; the States must have the power to alter their creation, otherwise the creature starts to look more like the creator!


----------



## Mike Petrik

Tiger said:


> Not making the case for nullification in this instance (but I probably would in a different context!), but rather that the States could, for instance, call a convention either collectively where all attend or within each State. They could then decide as to what the Constitution (that they created) means. Any federal laws deemed "unconstitutional" would be abrogated, and the States could even clarify any aspects that were nebulous, to alleviate subsequent disputes. The decision would be corporate (majority? two-thirds? three-fourths?), not by individual States.
> 
> Regarding Article V: Once Congress calls for a convention to amend the Constitution, and decides on the mode of ratification, the second method completely belongs to the States. Again, I apologize for not being as precise as I should have been, but I think it's clear that in the latter mode, the States are by far the dominant power in the process.
> 
> Finally, I really do believe that States should determine if the amendment process has been executed properly. The States created the Constitution, and the Constitution created the Congress and Court; the States must have the power to alter their creation, otherwise the creature starts to look more like the creator!


There is certainly an appealing logic to what you say, but it is not necessarily compelling.

First, it is true that in a typical commercial contract the two parties usually can together choose to unwind the contract they created, and their joint determination of its meaning should normally also be dispositive. But our Constitution is not necessarily an analog to such a contract. If states convene and determine that X means Y, that may not satisfy the minority of states who would have liked to have been able to rely on X meaning Z. This is not to say that judicial review is perfectly satisfying either, but the notion that 50 parties reaching a majority or even consensus decision is the same as two parties reaching a unanimous decision is hardly persuasive. Indeed, there is obviously a discrete danger of tyranny of the majority in such a situation.

More fundamentally, some compacts are of higher dignity than a commercial contract. Indeed, in saner times a husband and wife who mutually desire a divorce could not effectuate such a dissolution either unilaterally or easily. This is because it was implicitly understood that their compact affected third party beneficiaries, such as the community, their children and the Almighty. While those beneficiaries were not signatories, the spouses understood from the inception of their marriage that others relied on their mutual promises, and therefore the union they voluntarily created could not be similarly voluntarily unwound. Similarly, the third party beneficiaries of our Union are the citizens of the United States individually, who are entitled to view the Constitution as something more than a commercial contract the terms and status of which can be determined by its signatories. The states did create the Constitution and thereby the Union, but it does not logically follow that the states therefore must possess the penultimate authority over that Constitution or the Union they created. Upon creation of the Union, each individual state and each individual American citizen became a stakeholding beneficiary, and a majority or even super-majority of states cannot necessarily confiscate from those citizen beneficiaries the benefits those states had voluntarily surrendered to and conferred upon them.

And yes, most of the heavy lifting under the second Amendment process is accomplished by states. Nonetheless Article 5 instructs Congress to call the convention once much of that lifting has been accomplished. The Court is simply saying that determining when those predicate tasks have occurred rests exclusively with Congress, and it therefore cannot interfere. For example, the Court cannot order Congress to convene a Convention even if a state or group of states asserts that all predicate acts have been accomplished and Congress disagrees, even if the Court agrees with the assertion.


----------



## Tiger

Mike Petrik said:


> There is certainly a logic to what you say, but it is not necessarily compelling...This is not to say that judicial review is perfectly satisfactory either, but the notion that 50 parties reaching a majority or even consensus decision is the same as two parties reaching a unanimous decision is hardly persuasive...Similarly, the third party beneficiaries of our Union are the citizens of the United States individually, who are entitled to view the Constitution as something more than a commercial contract the terms and status of which can be determined by its signatories. The states did create the Constitution and thereby the federal government, but it does not logically follow that the states therefore must possess the penultimate authority over that Constitution or Union they created. Upon creation of the Union, each individual state and each individual American citizen is a stakeholder, and a majority or even super-majority of states cannot necessarily take away from them what they earlier voluntarily surrendered upon the Union's creation.


I will agree to disagree on the Article V point(s), especially as we run the risk of being a bit esoteric for other readers.

But as to the points above, Mike - surely you don't believe that a convention of fifty states, or fifty separate conventions, one or the other populated by delegates elected by the people of those states in order to determine the constitutionality of a federal action, is inferior to judicial review, where a handful of unelected, politically-driven political appointees decide what is or isn't constitutional, invariably based on their political biases that enabled them to be appointed in the first place? Doesn't the method I propose really represent the "stakeholders" that you identified (states and their people) far better than the Court?

Additionally, I do not believe the States (or people) ever "voluntarily surrendered upon the Union's creation" their powers of self-governance, the power to amend the Constitution, or the power to eradicate constitutional wrongs. I argue just the opposite; they never gave up those powers - it would be a _felo de se_. Even if Article III clearly gave the Court the power of judicial review, the states could still decide that this was a mistake, and eliminate that power from the Constitution via the Article V amendment process.

This conversation should be taking place over spaghetti bolognese, veal, and a nice bottle of Bordeaux!


----------



## Mike Petrik

Tiger said:


> I will agree to disagree on the Article V point(s), especially as we run the risk of being a bit esoteric for other readers.
> 
> But as to the points above, Mike - surely you don't believe that a convention of fifty states, or fifty separate conventions, one or the other populated by delegates elected by the people of those states in order to determine the constitutionality of a federal action, is inferior to judicial review, where a handful of unelected, politically-driven political appointees decide what is or isn't constitutional, invariably based on their political biases that enabled them to be appointed in the first place? Doesn't the method I propose really represent the "stakeholders" that you identified (states and their people) far better than the Court?
> 
> Additionally, I do not believe the States (or people) ever "voluntarily surrendered upon the Union's creation" their powers of self-governance, the power to amend the Constitution, or the power to eradicate constitutional wrongs. I argue just the opposite; they never gave up those powers - it would be a _felo de se_. Even if Article III clearly gave the Court the power of judicial review, the states could still decide that this was a mistake, and eliminate that power from the Constitution via the Article V amendment process.
> 
> This conversation should be taking place over spaghetti bolognese, veal, and a nice bottle of Bordeaux!


Agree emphatically with your first and last points.

I do most certainly believe that states surrendered some aspects of their sovereignty upon the creation of the Union. And although such surrender represented a voluntary act of will, I do not believe that it can be similarly recovered by a voluntary act of will.

As for whether a final determination of constitutionality is better determined by convention or judicial review, I cannot be sure, but the acknowledged deficiencies of the latter must be measured against the rather apparent deficiencies of the former, which include (i) no constitutional warrant whatsoever and (ii) the risk of pernicious majoritarianism. A "majority rules" approach risks making a mockery of a true constitution. As inevitably political as the federal judiciary all too often is, the conventions you describe would be perfectly political, meaning the decisions would have nothing to do with law or principle, but solely a function of power. The checks and balances built into the constitution, however imperfect, would not apply. There is a place for such political processes, but then we get back to Article V esoteria. 

Finally, I wonder whether any other forum members find it at all amusing that a member from New York is advancing the cause of states rights against a member from Atlanta who is advancing the cause of the Union. ;-)


----------



## Tiger

Mike Petrik said:


> Agree emphatically with your first and last points.
> 
> I do most certainly believe that states surrendered some aspects of their sovereignty upon the creation of the Union. And although such surrender represented a voluntary act of will, I do not believe that it can be similarly recovered by a voluntary act of will.
> 
> As for whether a final determination of constitutionality is better determined by convention or judicial review, I cannot be sure, but the acknowledged deficiencies of the latter must be measured against the rather apparent deficiencies of the former, which include (i) no constitutional warrant whatsoever and (ii) the risk of pernicious majoritarianism. A "majority rules" approach risks making a mockery of a true constitution. As inevitably political as the federal judiciary all too often is, the conventions you describe would be perfectly political, meaning the decisions would have nothing to do with law or principle, but solely a function of power. The checks and balances built into the constitution, however imperfect, would not apply. There is a place for such political processes, but then we get back to Article V esoteria.
> 
> Finally, I wonder whether any other forum members find it at all amusing that a member from New York is advancing the cause of states rights against a member from Atlanta who is advancing the cause of the Union. ;-)


I also believe that States surrendered aspects of their sovereignty - those powers that are expressly delegated to the general government by the Constitution or prohibited to the States by it (and only those powers!).

Neither judicial review nor my "remedy" have constitutional warrant, yet I think I have the stronger case when we realize that it was the States that created the federal compact in the first place, and never ceded the power to alter or abolish that compact to the general government. It is a right retained by the people through their representatives (and sometimes, in spite of their representatives!), if Locke, Mason, and Jefferson are to be believed.

You make an excellent point about the potentiality of "pernicious majoritarianism," yet I fail to see how this is somehow less desirable than a "pernicious oligarchy" i.e., the Supreme Court. Aren't the vast majority of the Court's decisions solely a function of power, even usurped power? That famous Robert Jackson quote comes to mind, "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."

Checks and balances died a long time ago, when political ideology triumphed over rule of law. A Congress and Executive branch of the same political party could ram through any darn legislation they like, and a Court with the same political ideology would rubber stamp those acts. Akin to what the Federalists during the Early Republic, or the Democrats during the New Deal (post-1937) and early 1940s, or Democrats in the mid-1960s.

The locus of power must be somewhere; I prefer the States through their representatives as selected by their citizens.

A trenchant observation, that last comment. Of course, despite being born and raised here, I'm not a typical New Yorker, and I don't think Eagle's circle of friends would recognize such a Southern gentleman as you. (My only hope is that we have been so arcane that everyone else - including Eagle - deleted their AAAC accounts!)


----------



## Mike Petrik

Tiger said:


> I also believe that States surrendered aspects of their sovereignty - those powers that are expressly delegated to the general government by the Constitution or prohibited to the States by it (and only those powers!).
> 
> Neither judicial review nor my "remedy" have constitutional warrant, yet I think I have the stronger case when we realize that it was the States that created the federal compact in the first place, and never ceded the power to alter or abolish that compact to the general government. It is a right retained by the people through their representatives (and sometimes, in spite of their representatives!), if Locke, Mason, and Jefferson are to be believed.
> 
> You make an excellent point about the potentiality of "pernicious majoritarianism," yet I fail to see how this is somehow less desirable than a "pernicious oligarchy" i.e., the Supreme Court. Aren't the vast majority of the Court's decisions solely a function of power, even usurped power? That famous Robert Jackson quote comes to mind, "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."
> 
> Checks and balances died a long time ago, when political ideology triumphed over rule of law. A Congress and Executive branch of the same political party could ram through any darn legislation they like, and a Court with the same political ideology would rubber stamp those acts. Akin to what the Federalists during the Early Republic, or the Democrats during the New Deal (post-1937) and early 1940s, or Democrats in the mid-1960s.
> 
> The locus of power must be somewhere; I prefer the States through their representatives as selected by their citizens.
> 
> A trenchant observation, that last comment. Of course, despite being born and raised here, I'm not a typical New Yorker, and I don't think Eagle's circle of friends would recognize such a Southern gentleman as you. (My only hope is that we have been so arcane that everyone else - including Eagle - deleted their AAAC accounts!)


Well, I would not go so far as to announce the death of checks and balances. They have always been clumsy instruments, and go through chapters when some checks are robust and others are dormant. I do think Bickel was right that the Framers did not anticipate the power of the judicial branch, and as a consequence encumbered it insufficiently with checks. But unlike Bickel (and you) I don't infer an overreach of power from that failure to anticipate. In other words, I recognize a distinction between what the Framers did and what they might have thought they did. They could not anticipate all the implications of the words they left us to grapple with. For instance, they accorded Congress sweeping powers through the Commerce Clause, even though they certainly did not anticipate it. Yet the words are broad and not tethered to anything at all. When a law is passed it means what it says, not what it might have been intended to mean. If due process means anything at all, it should mean that. The Framers were geniuses, but not infallible. They failed to see that judicial review was a predictable consequence of the architecture they gave us, which in my view is fine, but they should have given the other two branches greater power to check abuses such as Dredd Scott, Roe v Wade, and Lawrence. Finally, your faith in the people and their representatives is hard to square with your New Deal legislation examples. The responsibility for such legislation rests not with an activist court, but with an activist legislature elected by the people. While you no doubt disagree, I think most of that legislation, however imprudent or wrongheaded, was perfectly constitutional. Substantive due process was bad doctrine, even if it served to protect us from stupid legislation. Our Framers certainly envisioned a small federal government, with police and similar powers resting with states. But they left us a Constitution whose words are more than elastic enough for the people to assign a larger role to the national government if they wish. For almost 100 years they have so wished. You and I disagree, but we are in the minority. One issue I have with liberals is that they tend to confuse their policy preferences with the Constitution. Laws they like are constitutionally permitted if not required, and laws they don't are unconstitutional. As conservatives, we shouldn't make that mistake. If the people are foolish enough (in my view) to demand a generous national minimum wage, the commerce clause gives Congress ample warrant. But that is not to say there have not been abuses, especially by the relatively unchecked judiciary. For instance, the resurrection of substantive due process via deceit in the privacy line of cases is indeed an overreach by the judicial branch. It is dishonest, and shamefully so.

As regards to oligarchy versus majoritarianism, I would submit the following observation. The purpose of the judge is to get to the right answer under law. Some judges are better than others, and certainly none is perfect. But as a lawyer my observation is that most are diligent and try in earnest. The purpose of the conventions you describe will be to count noses. People complain, and should, when they perceive judicial opinions grounded in nothing more than result-oriented policy preferences masquerading as legal analysis. You can be assured that the conventions you propose will involve nothing you or I would regard as legal analysis. The issue will be evaluated solely on political grounds just as any legislature evaluates proposed legislation -- our Constitution and its words will not be relevant at all. Accordingly, we would be trading the rule of law grounded in a written Constitution, however imperfectly administered, for a battle over policy preferences grounded in pure politics. I would not make that trade.

Finally, yes, no doubt our exchange is regarded by many to be arcane, even boring. But it is disappointing to read so many strong confident opinions on these and other matters unencumbered by any knowledge or information. It is one reason I visit this forum so infrequently these days. This has been a happy exception.


----------



## Tiger

Mike Petrik said:


> Well, I would not go so far as to announce the death of checks and balances. They have always been clumsy instruments, and go through chapters when some checks are robust and others are dormant. I do think Bickel was right that the Framers did not anticipate the power of the judicial branch, and as a consequence encumbered it insufficiently with checks. But unlike Bickel (and you) I don't infer an overreach of power from that failure to anticipate. The Framers also accorded Congress sweeping powers through the Commerce Clause, even though they did not anticipate it. Yet the words are broad and not tethered to anything at all. When a law is passed it means what it says, not what it might have been intended to mean. If due process means anything at all, it should mean that. The Framers were geniuses, but not infallible. They failed to see that judicial review was a predictable consequence of the architecture they gave us, which in my view is fine, but they should have given the other two branches greater power to check abuses such as Dredd Scott, Roe v Wade, and Lawrence. Finally, your faith in the people and their representatives is hard to square with your New Deal legislation examples. The responsibility for such legislation rests not with an activist court, but with an activist legislature elected by the people. While you no doubt disagree, I think most of that legislation, however imprudent or wrongheaded, was perfectly constitutional. Substantive due process was bad doctrine, even if it served to protect us from stupid legislation. Our Framers certainly envisioned a small federal government, with police and similar powers resting with states. But they left us a Constitution whose words are more than elastic enough for the people to assign a larger role to the national government if they wish. For almost 100 years they have so wished. You and I disagree, but we are in the minority. One issue I have with liberals is that they tend to confuse their policy preferences with the Constitution. Laws they like are constitutionally permitted if not required, and laws they don't are unconstitutional. As conservatives, we shouldn't make that mistake. If the people are foolish enough (in my view) to demand a generous national minimum wage, the commerce clause gives Congress ample warrant. But that is not to say there have not been abuses, especially by the relatively unchecked judiciary. For instance, the resurrection of substantive due process via deceit in the privacy line of cases is indeed an overreach by the judicial branch. It is dishonest, and shamefully so.
> 
> As regards to oligarchy versus majoritarianism, I would submit the following observation. The purpose of the judge is to get to the right answer under law. Some judges are better than others, and certainly none is perfect. But as a lawyer my observation is that most are diligent and try in earnest. The purpose of the conventions you describe will be to count noses. People complain, and should, when they perceive judicial opinions grounded in nothing more than result-oriented policy preferences masquerading as legal analysis. You can be assured that the conventions you propose will involve nothing you or I would regard as legal analysis. The issue will be evaluated solely on political grounds just as any legislature evaluates proposed legislation -- our Constitution and its words will not be relevant at all. Accordingly, we would be trading the rule of law grounded in a written Constitution, however imperfectly administered, for a battle over policy preferences grounded in pure politics. I would not make that trade.
> 
> Finally, yes, no doubt our exchange is regarded by many to be arcane, even boring. But it is disappointing to read so many strong confident opinions on these and other matters unencumbered by any knowledge or information. It is one reason I visit this forum so infrequently these days. This has been a happy exception.


I always thought that the Federalists seemed overly confident about the efficacy of checks and balances and separation of powers as instituted in the Constitution. Makes me wonder if that was part of the "selling job" to win ratification.

Is the Commerce Clause a sweeping power, or did it become that after Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) and other cases? To go from "regulating commerce among the several states" to controlling everything that crosses state lines - even when it does not pertain to commerce! - doesn't sound like an intent of the Framers, but rather a desire of the nationalists. Wickard v. Filburn (1942) stands as a monument to this insanity; I'm sure there are others.

Your remarks on the Framers failing to anticipate judicial review, and subsequent failure to prevent the excesses of the Court, are astute. However, I believe much if not all New Deal legislation went far beyond the powers of Congress. Unfortunately, the only entities with any power to stop it (the states) had long since been emasculated. The Court post-Four Horsemen sure wasn't going to do it (nor should they, as I stand steadfastly consistent in my constitutional exegesis!).

You wrote, "Our Framers certainly envisioned a small federal government, with police and similar powers resting with states. But they left us a Constitution whose words are more than elastic enough for the people to assign a larger role to the national government if they wish." This is mostly true, and we can't say we weren't warned, as many of the Antifederalists pointed out that such an outcome was inevitable. I'd add that besides a measure of elasticity, there was a large dose of duplicity in those who sought to impose their visions on the Constitution. In either case, the defense of the document and any extant mechanisms for that purpose were too weak to withstand the onslaught.

Your example of minimum wage laws being permissible through the Commerce Clause is inscrutable to me. Again, I think of Wickard v. Filburn, and realize just about any activity could be governed by this clause - it cannot be! It would've been far better to remain under the British Crown than this!

You may very well be right about conventions substituting "policy grounded in politics" for "the rule of law grounded in a written Constitution" but your correctness is, I think, theoretical. I do not believe that the Supreme Court (and all of my references to judges have been meant for the High Court) in actuality applies the rule of law, nor are its decisions grounded in the Constitution. I think the Court has specific policy preferences, and then figures out a way - tortured or otherwise - to justify a predetermined ruling.

You have provided me with much to think about; I sense a summer burdened with a bit of research and thinking on how to prevent the types of abuses we've discussed (and debated).

Your kind words are greatly appreciated, and immensely flattering, Mike. (Coming from you, how could they not be?) Thank you for always being so thorough, so well-reasoned, and so patient!


----------



## Mike Petrik

Cheers, Tiger!


----------



## Gurdon

Tiger, Mike Petrik,

Thank you both for conducting your wonderfully informative and civil exchange to the considerable benefit of those of us fortunate enough to have happened upon it. 

Your nuanced discussion brought clarity to a complicated subject.

As an erstwhile land use regulator (urban planner for a major US city, and planning commissioner in my local small town) I have been involved with the interaction of law and policy, and actually wrote zoning and planning ordinances. In the course of this I came to appreciate and enjoy the process of making law work. Your discussion reinforces this appreciation.

Best regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Tiger

Thank you, Gurdon, for such a kind and thoughtful message!


----------



## Mike Petrik

Hear hear. Happy Sabbath day, Gurdon.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

This is all that matters to me and all that matters to anyone who has served. The rest of what you are all saying is just static!


----------



## tocqueville

Earl of Ormonde said:


> This is all that matters to me and all that matters to anyone who has served. The rest of what you are all saying is just static!


So many dead, and so few justifiable conflicts.


----------



## SG_67

tocqueville said:


> So many dead, and so few justifiable conflicts.


This is not meant to inflame or to take away from those killed.

However, could you please tell me which of those conflict, which few, were justifiable?

War is an incredibly regrettable exercise and I don't know anyone who relishes it or welcomes it, but sometimes it comes about or is thrust upon us. Sometimes we are left with few choices.

Please tell me which from that list were justifiable.


----------



## tocqueville

SG_67 said:


> This is not meant to inflame or to take away from those killed.
> 
> However, could you please tell me which of those conflict, which few, were justifiable?
> 
> War is an incredibly regrettable exercise and I don't know anyone who relishes it or welcomes it, but sometimes it comes about or is thrust upon us. Sometimes we are left with few choices.
> 
> Please tell me which from that list were justifiable.


There really haven't been many wars that have been "thrust upon us."

So here's a list of the US wars I feel were unambiguously worth fighting:

The Civil War
World War One
World War Two
The Korean War
The Afghan War

That's it. I in fact am a little ambivalent about WWI, given the wickedness of the British and French Empires at the time, although I'm all in favor of defending Britain and France themselves.

Wars I consider unambiguously wrong:

Any of the fighting having to do with China, except for Korea 1950-53, (although in that case the Chinese intervention was entirely avoidable if MacArthur and some of the hawks in Washington hadn't been such asses). But the Boxer rebellion? Seriously?

The Philippines Insurrection
The Iraq War (2003)
Grenada
Panama (1989)
All those early 20th century Central American interventions
The Mexican-American War (although I like the outcome)
The American Revolution (again, although I like the outcome)
War of 1812 (let's be honest, it was a land grab that failed)
The 1990-91 Iraq War

Re: the American Revolution, I've yet to read anywhere any evidence that British rule was so tyrannical as to justify killing and being killed. Canada is proof that bloodshed was not a prerequisite for democracy and liberty.


----------



## Langham

tocqueville said:


> ...I in fact am a little ambivalent about WWI, given *the wickedness of the British and French Empires *at the time, ....


That school of thought is very old if I may say so. Imperialism had some unambiguously benign aspects, and not just for the British. It would be trite and tedious to overlook the perpetuation of racism, but on the other hand there was the abolition of slavery in 1833, not just as a kindly thought but as an intention that was pursued with determination. Also the dissemination of the English language and sports, and the common law system. There are large tracts of Africa where the only experience of enlightened government was long ago, under the British.

I know rather little about the French empire. If any empires could be said to have been wicked, they were the Belgian empire and that of the Japanese.


----------



## tocqueville

Langham said:


> That school of thought is very old if I may say so. Imperialism had some unambiguously benign aspects, and not just for the British. It would be trite and tedious to overlook the perpetuation of racism, but on the other hand there was the abolition of slavery in 1833, not just as a kindly thought but as an intention that was pursued with determination. Also the dissemination of the English language and sports, and the common law system. There are large tracts of Africa where the only experience of enlightened government was long ago, under the British.
> 
> I know rather little about the French empire. If any empires could be said to have been wicked, they were the Belgian empire and that of the Japanese.


Indeed, the British eradication of slavery in the 19th century was one of Britain's greatest gifts to humanity, if not the greatest gift, although it did come about after first protecting and sponsoring the trade earlier on, but the point remains. I would go further to say that one of the reasons why the American Revolution ended up being a good thing is because Britain's loss of the American colonies lessened the influence of the slavery lobby. Had Britain still controlled the American South, I can't imagine the British government being able to muster the political will to abolish slavery.

ALso, I concur that in many ways the British and French period in Africa was generally positive for local populations. I'll go further than that: Decolonization was probably a more wicked measure than colonization for most African states. Still, we're not talking about a lot of people. I'm thinking more of South Asia, East Asia, and the Middle East. Think of all the wars fought to advance the interests of the Honourable (cough) East India Company, the pillage of India, the Opium Wars, etc. etc. And in the 20th century, the gang rape of what is now Turkey.

British Imperialism was not all bad, but it's not something I would have endorsed having the US get behind. Indeed, FDR, I believe, made clear to Churchill that he was not interested in preserving the Empire while being perfectly willing to aid Britain herself. I don't know if Wilson had comparable views.


----------



## Tiger

tocqueville said:


> There really haven't been many wars that have been "thrust upon us."
> 
> So here's a list of the US wars I feel were unambiguously worth fighting:
> 
> The Civil War
> World War One
> World War Two
> The Korean War
> The Afghan War


_*Unambiguous?*_

The War for Southern Independence was simply too complex, controversial, and destructive to be called "unambiguously worth fighting." The United States had no real interest in the Great War, so I would disagree here, too. If the Korean War was so "unambiguously worth fighting," why didn't Congress declare war? Why was it an American "unambiguity" instaed of a free world one?

I can make a far greater case for fighting the War of American Independence than any of the three above...


----------



## Langham

tocqueville said:


> Indeed, the British eradication of slavery in the 19th century was one of Britain's greatest gifts to humanity, if not the greatest gift, although it did come about after first protecting and sponsoring the trade earlier on, but the point remains. I would go further to say that one of the reasons why the American Revolution ended up being a good thing is because Britain's loss of the American colonies lessened the influence of the slavery lobby. Had Britain still controlled the American South, I can't imagine the British government being able to muster the political will to abolish slavery.
> 
> ALso, I concur that in many ways the British and French period in Africa was generally positive for local populations. I'll go further than that: Decolonization was probably a more wicked measure than colonization for most African states. Still, we're not talking about a lot of people. I'm thinking more of South Asia, East Asia, and the Middle East. Think of all the wars fought to advance the interests of the Honourable (cough) East India Company, the pillage of India, the Opium Wars, etc. etc. And in the 20th century, the gang rape of what is now Turkey.
> 
> British Imperialism was not all bad, but it's not something I would have endorsed having the US get behind. Indeed, FDR, I believe, made clear to Churchill that he was not interested in preserving the Empire while being perfectly willing to aid Britain herself. I don't know if Wilson had comparable views.


Decolonisation done too soon and too hastily, the opium trade etc etc - yes, there are many things that we now know were not benevolent, just as in 200 years time perhaps people will look back on the present time with similar disdain (has much changed, when garments are still being made in dangerous sweat shops in Bangladesh by underpaid locals, for the benefit of Western consumers?). India was not exactly 'pillaged', however - there was two-way trade, with railways, cities hospitals, schools, missions etc all being established. "Gang rape of Turkey"? Put like that it was no worse than what the Turks had been doing for centuries beforehand.


----------



## eagle2250

^^Brother Langham offers a thoughtful and thought provoking post! Indeed, armchair quarterbacking or looking back on past events and passing judgement does seem to afford the practitioner what appears as 20/20 hindsight. Though in reality, if we had been there at the time, could/would we have made any better choices? In the vast majority of cases, I rather doubt it. I suspect in each instance, the decision makers involved were doing their level best to make the right decision. However, as is the case with we humans, in many cases our judgement eventually proves flawed!


----------



## SG_67

tocqueville said:


> There really haven't been many wars that have been "thrust upon us."
> 
> So here's a list of the US wars I feel were unambiguously worth fighting:
> 
> The Civil War
> World War One
> World War Two
> The Korean War
> The Afghan War
> 
> That's it. I in fact am a little ambivalent about WWI, given the wickedness of the British and French Empires at the time, although I'm all in favor of defending Britain and France themselves.
> 
> Wars I consider unambiguously wrong:
> 
> Any of the fighting having to do with China, except for Korea 1950-53, (although in that case the Chinese intervention was entirely avoidable if MacArthur and some of the hawks in Washington hadn't been such asses). But the Boxer rebellion? Seriously?
> 
> The Philippines Insurrection
> The Iraq War (2003)
> Grenada
> Panama (1989)
> All those early 20th century Central American interventions
> The Mexican-American War (although I like the outcome)
> The American Revolution (again, although I like the outcome)
> War of 1812 (let's be honest, it was a land grab that failed)
> The 1990-91 Iraq War
> 
> Re: the American Revolution, I've yet to read anywhere any evidence that British rule was so tyrannical as to justify killing and being killed. Canada is proof that bloodshed was not a prerequisite for democracy and liberty.


Canadian independence came about long after we were independent. Different times. Different peoples and a completely different world.

By the way, I may be mistaken but I believe Her Royal And Serene Highness Elizabeth II is the constitutional monarch of Canada.


----------



## Langham

> ^^Brother Langham offers a thoughtful and thought provoking post! Indeed, armchair quarterbacking or looking back on past events and passing judgement does seem to afford the practitioner what appears as 20/20 hindsight. Though in reality, if we had been there at the time, could/would we have made any better choices? In the vast majority of cases, I rather doubt it. I suspect in each instance, the decision makers involved were doing their level best to make the right decision. However, as is the case with we humans, in many cases our judgement eventually proves flawed!


^ No more so than my own, I can assure you, on many occasions as I have often been acutely aware, so I appreciate your calm perspective. I know the British Empire still has the capacity (as an idea) to stoke flaming resentment in many quarters around the world, and even at home. Its many positive contributions are usually overlooked.


----------



## SG_67

^indeed the contributions of the English speaking nations are often overlooked.


----------



## Langham

tocqueville said:


> T...I in fact am a little ambivalent about WWI, given the wickedness of the British and French Empires a...


Also bear in mind the vastly important contribution of imperial forces, from India, Canada, South Africa, and of course Australia and New Zealand and elsewhere, in both world wars. British land forces on both occasions would have been no match for Germany and her allies, without the colonies. It's interesting to speculate what the long-term train of events would have been if Germany had been victorious in WWI, in control of two-thirds of the planet.


----------



## SG_67

Langham said:


> Also bear in mind the vastly important contribution of imperial forces, from India, Canada, South Africa, and of course Australia and New Zealand and elsewhere, in both world wars. British land forces on both occasions would have been no match for Germany and her allies, without the colonies. It's interesting to speculate what the long-term train of events would have been if Germany had been victorious in WWI, in control of two-thirds of the planet.


I've read volumes upon volumes on WWI and to even speculate is pure fantasy. The German war effort was doomed from the beginning.

The same can be said of WWII. The war started going south for Germany after the Luftwaffe effectively lost air superiority after the Battle of Britain. It was only matter of time.


----------



## Langham

SG_67 said:


> I've read volumes upon volumes on WWI and to even speculate is pure fantasy. The German war effort was doomed from the beginning.
> 
> The same can be said of WWII. The war started going south for Germany after the Luftwaffe effectively lost air superiority after the Battle of Britain. It was only matter of time.


We now know the outcome on both occasions, so yes, it is fantasy in a sense. At the time, however, the eventual turn of events may have seemed much less certain.


----------



## Hitch

Langham said:


> Also bear in mind the vastly important contribution of imperial forces, from India, Canada, South Africa, and of course Australia and New Zealand and elsewhere, in both world wars. British land forces on both occasions would have been no match for Germany and her allies, without the colonies. It's interesting to speculate what the long-term train of events would have been if Germany had been victorious in WWI, in control of two-thirds of the planet.


It may have led to a world that never saw the rise of the NAZIs.


----------



## SG_67

Langham said:


> We now know the outcome on both occasions, so yes, it is fantasy in a sense. At the time, however, the eventual turn of events may have seemed much less certain.


Of course the players thought so, but when the actual facts are dissected the overall outcome was pretty much pre-determined.


----------



## Tiger

SG_67 said:


> Of course the players thought so, but when the actual facts are dissected the overall outcome was pretty much pre-determined.


Do you believe this to be true even if the United States decided against entering the war?


----------



## SG_67

Tiger said:


> Do you believe this to be true even if the United States decided against entering the war?


Do you mean WWI or WWII?

WWI would likely have been extended but eventually Germany would have lost. After the treat of Brest-Litovsk, the German army was freed up from the East but it was pretty badly banged up. They lacked the industrial output available to the French and the British and would eventually have been bled dry.

The also lacked the vast ability to tap into the markets and to finance their war. They lacked colonies from which to draw raw materials and troops. The British navy would have eventually been able to successfully blockade the Germans and the flow of materials from the U.S. was already on its way.

As for WWII, the Battle of Britain decimated the Luftwaffe and robbed it of its most skilled flyers. It ceased to be a truly decisive factor after that. Operation Barbarossa was arguably the most disastrous military operation ever conceived. The German economy was not geared as a war economy and Hitler decided to wage war against the two most powerful industrial economies in the world.

The German war machine was a hodgepodge of materials, weapons systems and platforms with little interchangeability. They were quite inefficient at being able to turn out large quantities of armor and weapons. Believe it or not, Russian armor was actually superior. The Germans lacked the industry of the Allied forces, even without the assistance of the U.S.

The Russian's had smashed the 6th Army at Stalingrad and the battle of Kursk pretty much decimated the German Armored divisions. Many forget that 8 out of every 10 German soldiers killed during WWII were killed on the Russian front. The entry of the U.S. into the war likely accelerated things and kept Europe from tearing itself apart beyond recognition.


----------



## Tiger

SG_67 said:


> Do you mean WWI or WWII?
> 
> WWI would likely have been extended but eventually Germany would have lost. After the treat of Brest-Litovsk, the German army was freed up from the East but it was pretty badly banged up. They lacked the industrial output available to the French and the British and would eventually have been bled dry.
> 
> The also lacked the vast ability to tap into the markets and to finance their war. They lacked colonies from which to draw raw materials and troops. The British navy would have eventually been able to successfully blockade the Germans and the flow of materials from the U.S. was already on its way.


Sorry for any confusion. I thought the direction of the thread went toward the Great War...

I don't think one can say so confidently that Germany would have lost. Britain and France had been devastated, too; I think the chances for an extended war ending in stalemate would be much greater than outright Allied victory. Germany was blockading Britain as well, and also had colonial possessions. The fact that France and Britain were so pulverized (for many years after) despite American entry into the war and subsequent victory indicates that the outcome would have been different had the United States remained neutral (and to this writer, that would've been wisest course for the U.S.).

One can only wonder what the world would've been like if the Great War could have been averted. The impact of that calamity dominated the last century, and perhaps this one...


----------



## SG_67

Tiger said:


> Sorry for any confusion. I thought the direction of the thread went toward the Great War...
> 
> I don't think one can say so confidently that Germany would have lost. Britain and France had been devastated, too; I think the chances for an extended war ending in stalemate would be much greater than outright Allied victory. Germany was blockading Britain as well, and also had colonial possessions. The fact that France and Britain were so pulverized (for many years after) despite American entry into the war and subsequent victory indicates that the outcome would have been different had the United States remained neutral (and to this writer, that would've been wisest course for the U.S.).
> 
> One can only wonder what the world would've been like if the Great War could have been averted. The impact of that calamity dominated the last century, and perhaps this one...


One thing is for sure, the Great War can easily be cited as the cause of many of our troubles today, including those in the Middle East.

The Ottoman Empire would have probably disintegrated on its own so I wonder what the land grab would have looked like minus the Great War.


----------



## Tiger

SG_67 said:


> One thing is for sure, the Great War can easily be cited as the cause of many of our troubles today, including those in the Middle East.
> 
> The Ottoman Empire would have probably disintegrated on its own so I wonder what the land grab would have looked like minus the Great War.


All of the suppositions makes me wonder about the interconnectivity of historical events, and how the slightest change can lead to a remarkably different chain of events/outcome. In addition, it raises the issue of man's volition versus determinism, both when presupposing the existence of God or assuming that God does not exist.

Sounds like another thread!


----------



## SG_67

^It's all choice. But sometimes choices beget other bad choices and a spiral ensues.


----------



## Tiger

SG_67 said:


> ^It's all choice. But sometimes choices beget other bad choices and a spiral ensues.


I don't know the answer, but I wouldn't dismiss determinism out of hand. Too many philosophers, scientists, and theologians ascribe to the notion for it to be summarily rejected. In fact, a strong case could be made for it...


----------



## Mike Petrik

Tiger said:


> I don't know the answer, but I wouldn't dismiss determinism out of hand. Too many philosophers, scientists, and theologians ascribe to the notion for it to be summarily rejected. In fact, a strong case could be made for it...


I agree. While I don't remotely subscribe to any form of determinism, the concept of free will has not exactly been proven in the scientific sense. That said, I've never met any believer in determinism who actually lived his life in a way that didn't assume free will, but when called on it they always cheekily respond that their apparent reliance on free will is simply inevitable. ;-)


----------



## Shaver

Mike Petrik said:


> I agree. While I don't remotely subscribe to any form of determinism, the concept of free will has not exactly been proven in the scientific sense. That said, I've never met any believer in determinism who actually lived his life in a way that didn't assume free will, but when called on it they always cheekily respond that their apparent reliance on free will is simply inevitable. ;-)


Bereitschaftspotential would suggest that the notion of free will is illusory.

However, Ancestor Programme Theory would suggest that it is almost inevitable that we exist within a sophisticated simulation anyway.

Still, onwards and upwards.


----------



## Chouan

Tiger said:


> Sorry for any confusion. I thought the direction of the thread went toward the Great War...
> 
> I don't think one can say so confidently that Germany would have lost. Britain and France had been devastated, too; I think the chances for an extended war ending in stalemate would be much greater than outright Allied victory. Germany was blockading Britain as well, and also had colonial possessions. The fact that France and Britain were so pulverized (for many years after) despite American entry into the war and subsequent victory indicates that the outcome would have been different had the United States remained neutral (and to this writer, that would've been wisest course for the U.S.).
> 
> One can only wonder what the world would've been like if the Great War could have been averted. The impact of that calamity dominated the last century, and perhaps this one...


I would argue that once Britain's blockade was established, by 1915, Germany had already lost. By 1915 all of Germany's overseas possessions had been lost, and although the U Boat campaign had started, it was never so effective as to be classed as a blockade. By 1918, before US troops had been in action, Germany was already facing starvation and only kept going because the Army was able to convinced by Germany's political leaders that Britain and France were worse off. the Michael Offensive, although partly successful, showed the German soldiers the truth, and led directly to the collapse of October.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> I would argue that once Britain's blockade was established, by 1915, Germany had already lost. By 1915 all of Germany's overseas possessions had been lost, and although the U Boat campaign had started, it was never so effective as to be classed as a blockade. By 1918, before US troops had been in action, Germany was already facing starvation and only kept going because the Army was able to convinced by Germany's political leaders that Britain and France were worse off. the Michael Offensive, although partly successful, showed the German soldiers the truth, and led directly to the collapse of October.


Germany's Imperial Navy, the High Seas Fleet, was never intended, nor was it designed, to take on the Royal Navy directly, but instead serve as a deterrent. It was pretty badly damaged during the Battle of Jutland and that was pretty much it for any encounter between the British and German fleets.

The U-Boat campaign ceased being effective once the allies figured out the convoy system. Even then, U-Boats were quite inefficient. They had to often vent with outside air. Most of the time they would use the deck gun to destroy merchant ships and to go against an armed naval vessel would have been suicide. It really wasn't until WWII when the accuracy and efficacy of the torpedo made it a more formidable weapon. But then again, the countermeasures improved as well.

Germany really not very few imperial possessions before or during the war. During the war, they lacked the lift capacity to bring in resources from those few possessions, compared to the merchant fleet of the British.

Germany's effort was doomed from the beginning.


----------



## Chouan

Tiger said:


> Sorry for any confusion. I thought the direction of the thread went toward the Great War...
> 
> I don't think one can say so confidently that Germany would have lost. Britain and France had been devastated, too; I think the chances for an extended war ending in stalemate would be much greater than outright Allied victory. Germany was blockading Britain as well, and also had colonial possessions. The fact that France and Britain were so pulverized (for many years after) despite American entry into the war and subsequent victory indicates that the outcome would have been different had the United States remained neutral (and to this writer, that would've been wisest course for the U.S.).
> 
> One can only wonder what the world would've been like if the Great War could have been averted. The impact of that calamity dominated the last century, and perhaps this one...


I would agree that France had suffered significantly, enough to be described as pulverised I'm a bit doubtful. However, Britain itself had barely been touched and it's industry was still capable of sustaining Britain's war. There was clearly economic dislocation post-war, but that was because of the enormous costs incurred, which, as in all wars, have a negative effect on a country's economy. America's actual contribution to the war was minimal in any case, and the defeat of the Austrian and Turkish Empires would have meant that those allied troops in the Middle East and in N.Greece would have been available in France.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> I would agree that France had suffered significantly, enough to be described as pulverised I'm a bit doubtful. However, Britain itself had barely been touched and it's industry was still capable of sustaining Britain's war. There was clearly economic dislocation post-war, but that was because of the enormous costs incurred, which, as in all wars, have a negative effect on a country's economy. America's actual contribution to the war was minimal in any case, and the defeat of the Austrian and Turkish Empires would have meant that those allied troops in the Middle East and in N.Greece would have been available in France.


There are various estimates of the economic cost to Britain of fighting WWI. In fact it is an unknowable amount but one estimate puts it at $35 bn (at historical values), much more than the USA or France and very little less than the cost to Germany. The war was highly disruptive to the British economy and the depression that followed the war is some measure of that.


----------



## Mike Petrik

SG_67 said:


> Germany's Imperial Navy, the High Seas Fleet, was never intended, nor was it designed, to take on the Royal Navy directly, but instead serve as a deterrent. It was pretty badly damaged during the Battle of Jutland and that was pretty much it for any encounter between the British and German fleets.
> 
> The U-Boat campaign ceased being effective once the allies figured out the convoy system. Even then, U-Boats were quite inefficient. They had to often vent with outside air. Most of the time they would use the deck gun to destroy merchant ships and to go against an armed naval vessel would have been suicide. It really wasn't until WWII when the accuracy and efficacy of the torpedo made it a more formidable weapon. But then again, the countermeasures improved as well.
> 
> Germany really not very few imperial possessions before or during the war. During the war, they lacked the lift capacity to bring in resources from those few possessions, compared to the merchant fleet of the British.
> 
> Germany's effort was doomed from the beginning.


From Michael Peck: "It is also easy to assume that German defeat was inevitable at the hands of an Allied coalition richer in manpower, weapons and money. Yet Germany nearly captured Paris in 1914, crushed Serbia and Romania, bled the French Army until it mutinied, drove Russia out of the war, and then came oh-so-close to victory on the Western Front in 1918. Don't underestimate the power of Imperial Germany. Until the armistice was signed in a French railway carriage on November 11, 1918, Germany's enemies didn't."

I'm not an historian, but I think Germany's key blunder was invading Belgium in its attack on France. That is what caused Britain to enter the war. But for Britain, Germany probably could have successfully defeated both France and Russia. Britain's entry was decisive, and the consequential US entry (the US never would have entered the War but for Britain's involvement) mercifully expedited the tragic outcome.


----------



## Tiger

Mike Petrik said:


> I agree. While I don't remotely subscribe to any form of determinism, the concept of free will has not exactly been proven in the scientific sense. That said, I've never met any believer in determinism who actually lived his life in a way that didn't assume free will, but when called on it they always cheekily respond that their apparent reliance on free will is simply inevitable. ;-)


Yes; I've observed that very thing!

But I've experienced the converse, too - believers in free will who nevertheless speak of God's sovereign will, God's plan for their life, and how God has looked out for them. And of course, the claim that, "Some things are just meant to be." Doesn't seem like our "free will" friends place much faith in freedom!


----------



## Langham

Mike Petrik said:


> From Michael Peck: "It is also easy to assume that German defeat was inevitable at the hands of an Allied coalition richer in manpower, weapons and money. Yet Germany nearly captured Paris in 1914, crushed Serbia and Romania, bled the French Army until it mutinied, drove Russia out of the war, and then came oh-so-close to victory on the Western Front in 1918. Don't underestimate the power of Imperial Germany. Until the armistice was signed in a French railway carriage on November 11, 1918, Germany's enemies didn't."
> 
> I'm not an historian, but I think Germany's key blunder was invading Belgium in its attack on France. That is what caused Britain to enter the war. But for Britain, Germany probably could have successfully defeated both France and Russia. Britain's entry was decisive, and the consequential US entry (the US never would have entered the War but for Britain's involvement) mercifully expedited the tragic outcome.


That's quite possibly true - Britain was part of the Entente Cordiale, but whether this would have drawn Britain into a continental war involving France is uncertain. Being a guarantor for Belgium was more compelling. Had Russia not switched its alliance from Germany and Austria, to France, in the 1880s, the war also might never have happened.

From what I have read, Germany's economy, finances, and military were all highly geared to war, whereas Britain had made hardly any preparation at all for such a war.


----------



## SG_67

Mike Petrik said:


> From Michael Peck: "It is also easy to assume that German defeat was inevitable at the hands of an Allied coalition richer in manpower, weapons and money. Yet Germany nearly captured Paris in 1914, crushed Serbia and Romania, bled the French Army until it mutinied, drove Russia out of the war, and then came oh-so-close to victory on the Western Front in 1918. Don't underestimate the power of Imperial Germany. Until the armistice was signed in a French railway carriage on November 11, 1918, Germany's enemies didn't."
> 
> I'm not an historian, but I think Germany's key blunder was invading Belgium in its attack on France. That is what caused Britain to enter the war. But for Britain, Germany probably could have successfully defeated both France and Russia. Britain's entry was decisive, and the consequential US entry (the US never would have entered the War but for Britain's involvement) mercifully expedited the tragic outcome.


The problem with the German Army was not it's manpower, but instead was it's dysfunctional leadership. The Kaiser was the supreme Warlord and by all accounts he was incredibly impulsive and unreliable. The German high command was somewhat fractured and the officer corps was filled with Prussian aristocrats. It was not an Army that really rewarded merit.

Verdun was a slaughter field but the German's suffered as bad as the French being "bled white" which was was Erich von Falkenhayn had intended. The problem was that he did not inform the rest of the High Command as to his methods or strategy. The Russian's pretty much drove themselves out as they were fighting a revolution at the same time.

It you read about the Schlieffen Plan you'll see that von Moltke pretty much violated the emphasis on the western offensive so the German's were slowed down both in Belgium and then bogged down on the Marne. True the French army did see a spate of desertions and it had it's problems as well but it was better led by all accounts and had better armor and an armor doctrine, as did the British. Though not perfect and prone to breakdown and German anti tank weapons, they were still able to produce more and had a method and means of integrating armor into their offensives.

Sooner or later they would have figured out how to use the speed and striking power of armor to smash through the lines and force a German retreat.


----------



## Tiger

Please don't take offense, but I think anyone who has such certitude about events from a century ago, despite evidence to the contrary (and a post-war period indicating just how militarily and economically fractured so many nations were) is relying a bit more on ego than facts. If the outcome was so abundantly clear that people a century later can see it without equivocation, then how did all of those contemporary military commanders from so many countries _*not *_see it?


----------



## SG_67

Tiger said:


> Please don't take offense, but I think anyone who has such certitude about events from a century ago, despite evidence to the contrary (and a post-war period indicating just how militarily and economically fractured so many nations were) is relying a bit more on ego than facts. If the outcome was so abundantly clear that people a century later can see it without equivocation, then how did all of those contemporary military commanders from so many countries _*not *_see it?


That's why it is said that hindsight is 20/20.

The Russians thought they could easily defeat the Japanese during the Russo-Japanese war because the Japanese were an inferior race. The same was thought by Hitler of the Russians. The British underestimated the French during the French and Indian wars because of "Gallic sloth".

African Americans were kept from integrating with white units and flying combat aircraft because they were seen as an inferior race. Stalin thought that Hitler would never attack him and went on to refuse to believe the fact even as Barbarossa was unleashed. Britain never thought that France would come to the aid of Russia in a Balkans dispute.

History is full of instances where, for one reason or another, leaders made mistakes. Whether due to incompetence, racism, classism or any other matter of faulty decision making. I'm sure there are plenty here that would make the same arguments about some of our contemporary conflicts.

The more scholarly research that is done, and with the subjective element removed due to time, the more I think the current thinking is that the German war effort in WWI was doomed from the beginning.


----------



## Tiger

The research - a century hence - would have to include analyzing a staggering number of facts, and would have to anticipate a mind-boggling number of all types of variables, including human emotions/decision making. I think it's a fun exercise, but anyone writing with certitude is guilty, I believe, of revisionism to fit one's own established beliefs. 

It happens here on AAAC; in fact, it happened earlier in this very thread! (This thread has touched on so many topics, with participants sliding in and out as the topics shifted. Anyone simply reading the thread title will miss out on the myriad thoughts contained within it.)


----------



## Langham

SG_67 said:


> The problem with the German Army was not it's manpower, but instead was it's dysfunctional leadership. The Kaiser was the supreme Warlord and by all accounts he was incredibly impulsive and unreliable. The German high command was somewhat fractured and the officer corps was filled with Prussian aristocrats. It was not an Army that really rewarded merit.
> 
> ...


Do you think the British army was very different to that? The generals were widely thought to be donkeys.

The Kaiser was an interesting, rather unstable character with a conflicted relationship with his English cousin, King George, violently anti-English on occasion yet sometimes quite craven. He was sidelined during the course of the war, however.


----------



## SG_67

^ I would argue that the British army was probably led more coherently than and under better stricture than the Germans.

The Kaiser was indeed a very interesting character and I would urge anyone who gets a chance to read about him. He was quite comical and a bit of an embarrassment amongst the Royal houses of Europe. 

The Kaiser was sidelined but so was the remainder of the German High Command as Paul von Hindenberg and Eric Ludendorff pretty much made policy decisions, both strategic and tactical, without really any oversight. Hindenberg would issue order in the name of the Kaiser without anyone even knowing whether the Kaiser has any knowledge of it.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

tocqueville said:


> so few justifiable conflicts.


AAAAAGGGGGHHHHHH.......:mad2: :eek2:  :crazy:  :icon_headagainstwal :icon_scratch:


----------



## SG_67

Tiger said:


> The research - a century hence - would have to include analyzing a staggering number of facts, and would have to anticipate a mind-boggling number of all types of variables, including human emotions/decision making. I think it's a fun exercise, but anyone writing with certitude is guilty, I believe, of revisionism to fit one's own established beliefs.
> 
> It happens here on AAAC; in fact, it happened earlier in this very thread! (This thread has touched on so many topics, with participants sliding in and out as the topics shifted. Anyone simply reading the thread title will miss out on the myriad thoughts contained within it.)


Without going into specifics the question, in any discussion of a seminal historical event, is what exactly are we evaluating. You are correct in that there are numerous facts that are just unknown and some of the characters involved have gone on to almost become caricatures. They are certainly all dead and much of the written record is certainly biased.

I don't think the question is so much a "they should have done...." but rather given the decisions that were made and the events set in motion by those decisions, what were the likely outcomes. Whatever nuances existed they nonetheless informed those decisions and in the end we are left with the facts as they were.

I realize that people will still have an opinion one way or another on any event. But those opinions should always be based on first and foremost, what happened. Not what could have happened or should have happened.


----------



## Chouan

Tiger said:


> Please don't take offense, but I think anyone who has such certitude about events from a century ago, despite evidence to the contrary (and a post-war period indicating just how militarily and economically fractured so many nations were) is relying a bit more on ego than facts. If the outcome was so abundantly clear that people a century later can see it without equivocation, then how did all of those contemporary military commanders from so many countries _*not *_see it?


The military mind has rarely been the most perceptive, especially in an age when military careers were almost entirely divorced from civil life. In each case the military planners were convinced that their enemy could be defeated quickly. The Germans because of their advanced level of meticulous planning and the Scheiffen Plan, the French because of their Plan XIV and their 75mm artillery, the Brits because of their Navy.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> Do you think the British army was very different to that? The generals were widely thought to be donkeys.
> 
> The Kaiser was an interesting, rather unstable character with a conflicted relationship with his English cousin, King George, violently anti-English on occasion yet sometimes quite craven. He was sidelined during the course of the war, however.


The idea of "Lions led by Donkeys" is a very modern idea, coined by Alan Clark in the 1960's. Although there will always be sub-standard commanders, there were no more in WW1 than anywhere else.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> The idea of "Lions led by Donkeys" is a very modern idea, coined by Alan Clark in the 1960's. Although there will always be sub-standard commanders, there were no more in WW1 than anywhere else.


I think you'll find the idea, if not the exact phrase, is older than that:

The General'Good-morning; good-morning!' the General said 
When we met him last week on our way to the line. 
Now the soldiers he smiled at are most of 'em dead, 
And we're cursing his staff for incompetent swine. 
'He's a cheery old card,' grunted Harry to Jack
As they slogged up to Arras with rifle and pack.

But he did for them both by his plan of attack.

Siegfried Sassoon, 1918


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> The problem with the German Army was not it's manpower, but instead was it's dysfunctional leadership. The Kaiser was the supreme Warlord and by all accounts he was incredibly impulsive and unreliable.


Not really the German Army, which was very well led, but Germany itself, which was controlled, essentially by the partnership of Ludendorff and Hindenburg.



SG_67 said:


> The German high command was somewhat fractured and the officer corps was filled with Prussian aristocrats. It was not an Army that really rewarded merit.


German aristocrats rather than Prussians. THe army was, however, very well trained and organised, as both the British and French commanders acknowledged at the time. The officer corps and the NCOs were far more professional at every level than their British and French counterparts.


----------



## Langham

SG_67 said:


> Without going into specifics the question, in any discussion of a seminal historical event, is what exactly are we evaluating. You are correct in that there are numerous facts that are just unknown and some of the characters involved have gone on to almost become caricatures. They are certainly all dead and much of the written record is certainly biased.
> 
> I don't think the question is so much a "they should have done...." but rather given the decisions that were made and the events set in motion by those decisions, what were the likely outcomes. Whatever nuances existed they nonetheless informed those decisions and in the end we are left with the facts as they were.
> 
> I realize that people will still have an opinion one way or another on any event. But *those opinions should always be based on first and foremost, what happened. Not what could have happened or should have happened.*


But often what happened depended rather a lot on luck, or sometimes a mistaken appreciation of the facts - which, in war, are usually clouded by uncertainty.

For instance, much uncertainty still surrounds Rudolf Hess's flight to Scotland in 1941. The supposition is that he had come to offer peace via the Duke of Hamilton, thought by some to be a nazi sympathiser (of whom there were quite a few, at least before the war). Or alternatively, he was lured there in an elaborate plot by naval intelligence.

The episode suggests that the Germans (or at least Hess) thought Britain's position at that stage in the war was so weak, that there were people in power (such as Lord Halifax, and others) opposed to Churchill and who might be willing to make peace.

The true facts perhaps are known to a few people, but beyond them, no one really knows - so speculation is all that can we are left with.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

I've always though Hess' solo "peace flight" was highly unlikely, given his No.2 status in the 3rd Reich and his staunch support for it. I've always thought the "peace flight" was propoganda to discredit Hess and to unsettle Hitler and the Nazis i.e. make them think their No. 2 man had had second thoughts about the whole show and deserted to Britain, where common sense prevailed.


----------



## Langham

I believe the Germans put it about that Hess had had some sort of mental breakdown. But seeking peace with Britain (on German terms) would not have been inconsistent with supporting the 3rd Reich, given that they were about to attack Russia. 

The uncertainty about it is the point that I was making above.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Langham said:


> I believe the Germans put it about that Hess had had some sort of mental breakdown. But seeking peace with Britain (on German terms) would not have been inconsistent with supporting the 3rd Reich, given that they were about to attack Russia.
> 
> The uncertainty about it is the point that I was making above.


Yes, I realise that. And there are indeed many theories about it.

But I've never been comfortable with the theory that the Nazis thought they had the upper hand at that stage & that Hess was offering an honourable "out" for Britain.

That said, Hitler spent most of the war in the delusional belief hoping that Britain, whom he admired greatly according to those close to him, would join him or at least become neutral and cease hostilities against him so that he in turn could cease hostilities against Britain! Which has been stated by many Nazis that were there at the time as the reason that he didn't launch the V1 rockets against England until June 44.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> I think you'll find the idea, if not the exact phrase, is older than that:
> 
> *The General*
> 
> 'Good-morning; good-morning!' the General said
> When we met him last week on our way to the line.
> Now the soldiers he smiled at are most of 'em dead,
> And we're cursing his staff for incompetent swine.
> 'He's a cheery old card,' grunted Harry to Jack
> As they slogged up to Arras with rifle and pack.
> 
> But he did for them both by his plan of attack.
> 
> Siegfried Sassoon, 1918


I hardly think that Siegfried Sassoon is a reliable source for the period. He was very much against the war, or rather, against what he perceived as Britain's war aims. For every Sassoon there is a Grenfell.
The idea was conjured up by the Welsh Wizard at a time when he wanted to further his political career at the expense of the Generals. During the war he fully supported Haig; once the war was over he started to condemn him for his "butchery". The British Generals were emphatically not condemned as donkeys or anything like at the time. After Lloyd George it was a while before that view became more generally the "accepted" one, helped by people such as Liddell Hart in the Twenties.


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> That's it. I in fact am a little ambivalent about WWI, given the wickedness of the British and French Empires at the time, although I'm all in favor of defending Britain and France themselves.


Are you asserting that because an overseas Empire exists that it must therefore necessarily be wicked?



tocqueville said:


> Re: the American Revolution, I've yet to read anywhere any evidence that British rule was so tyrannical as to justify killing and being killed. Canada is proof that bloodshed was not a prerequisite for democracy and liberty.


One could argue that the American Revolution was engineered by an economic elite in the Americas for whom independence would have been personally advantageous, and who, through clever propaganda, convinced the majority of the rest of the white population that independence was in their interests as well.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> I hardly think that Siegfried Sassoon is a reliable source for the period. He was very much against the war, or rather, against what he perceived as Britain's war aims. For every Sassoon there is a Grenfell.
> The idea was conjured up by the Welsh Wizard at a time when he wanted to further his political career at the expense of the Generals. During the war he fully supported Haig; once the war was over he started to condemn him for his "butchery". The British Generals were emphatically not condemned as donkeys or anything like at the time. After Lloyd George it was a while before that view became more generally the "accepted" one, helped by people such as Liddell Hart in the Twenties.


I'm happy with Sassoon as an illustration of the views of the time. Of course he was anti-war, having experienced it at first hand - as were many others. It was that experience and perspective that gave rise to disillusionment with the military leadership.

As you point out, Lloyd George and other politicians of the time (Churchill for instance) also take some blame for meddling and interfering.

Bailey's 'The Secret Rooms' has some interesting material about the dissipated and louche, even faintly treacherous, life and career of Field Marshal French. Butcher Haig also gets a mention. It paints a picture of corruption and incompetence.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> I'm happy with Sassoon as an illustration of the views of the time. Of course he was anti-war, having experienced it at first hand - as were many others. It was that experience and perspective that gave rise to disillusionment with the military leadership.


But it is only his view. It is, therefore, a useful source for what Sassoon thought of the war, but not what the army as a whole thought of the war, or how it was carried out. At the time, the war was supported by the population and the Generals were neither hated nor condemned as butchers. Indeed, the turn-out at Haig's funeral in a remote Scottish village suggests the opposite. The popular view, indeed the "Black Adder" view, is a recent construct which has gained almost universal acceptance as "the truth", but it isn't.



Langham said:


> As you point out, Lloyd George and other politicians of the time (Churchill for instance) also take some blame for meddling and interfering.


I would suggest that political leaders in wartime don't meddle and interfere, as a rule, but control the Armed forces and strategy as they are elected so to do. LLoyd George, however, did interfere at times, but the issue is more his views published after the war which have been used by some as evidence of military incompetence by the Generals.



Langham said:


> Bailey's 'The Secret Rooms' has some interesting material about the dissipated and louche, even faintly treacherous, life and career of Field Marshal French. Butcher Haig also gets a mention. It paints a picture of corruption and incompetence.


And is a novel and therefore a) one person's view, b) prone to exaggeration and c) written to entertain rather than to educate. A modern novel isn't really evidence for the competence or otherwise of Britain's military leadership.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Re: Sassoon.

I agree with Chouan

The question arises, how many odes, poems and stories were there from soldiers who supported the war, who weren't pacifists, who weren't suffering mental problems and who didn't have shell shock?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Chouan said:


> At the time, the war was supported by the population and the Generals were neither hated nor condemned as butchers. Indeed, the turn-out at Haig's funeral in a remote Scottish village suggests the opposite. The popular view, indeed the "Black Adder" view, is a recent construct which has gained almost universal acceptance as "the truth", but it isn't.


A very good point. In the 1970s as part of a school project I spoke to several WWI veterans who lived in our street in Kensington and even in the same house of flats that wel ived in. None of them were anti-war, none of them spoke with hatred. ALL of them had a bit of a laugh about the awful food and the trench foot.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> And is a novel and therefore a) one person's view, b) prone to exaggeration and c) written to entertain rather than to educate. A modern novel isn't really evidence for the competence or otherwise of Britain's military leadership.


You're well wide of the mark. You obviously haven't read it. It's not a novel at all but a historical account of one family, the Manners of Belvoir, based upon impeccable research of source material - mostly letters and official documents. There is nothing fictional at all about it, so what you say is foolish and utterly without foundation. You're just thrashing around blindly in the dark.


----------



## Langham

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Re: Sassoon.
> 
> I agree with Chouan
> 
> The question arises, how many odes, poems and stories were there from soldiers who supported the war, who weren't pacifists, who weren't suffering mental problems and who didn't have shell shock?


Please enlighten me.

Sassoon of course was not the only war poet to be anti-war. Given the conditions in the trenches, the mental problems and shell shock seem quite understandable, not to mention a dislike of war and mistrust of the general staff.




> ALL of them had a bit of a laugh about the awful food and the trench foot.


That sounds a hoot.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> ...At the time, the war was supported by the population and the Generals were neither hated nor condemned as butchers. Indeed, the turn-out at Haig's funeral in a remote Scottish village suggests the opposite. ...


This strikes me as another of your wild assumptions. Who says the war was supported by the population? The general population at home had no idea at all of what the war was really like.

I suppose a good turn out for someone's funeral is a pretty good indicator however - half a million or so for Lady T after all.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> I would suggest that political leaders in wartime don't meddle and interfere, as a rule, but control the Armed forces and strategy as they are elected so to do. LLoyd George, however, did interfere at times, but the issue is more his views published after the war which have been used by some as evidence of military incompetence by the Generals.


I call it meddling and interfering. If the Dardanelles fiasco was not an instance of meddling and interfering to no good end, I don't know what is.


----------



## Langham

Earl of Ormonde said:


> YHitler spent most of the war in the delusional belief hoping that Britain, whom he admired greatly according to those close to him, would join him or at least become neutral and cease hostilities against him so that he in turn could cease hostilities against Britain! Which has been stated by many Nazis that were there at the time as the reason that he didn't launch the V1 rockets against England until June 44.


An alternative explanation might be that the rockets were simply not flight-tested and available to him until June 44.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Langham said:


> An alternative explanation might be that the rockets were simply not flight-tested and available to him until June 44.


The A4(V2) had already been agreed on in 1940. The V1 which was actually newer than the V2 was ready in 1942.


----------



## Langham

^ No doubt that was so. However, I find the idea of Hitler forbearing to use this or that weapon because he liked us rather implausible.


----------



## SG_67

Langham said:


> ^ No doubt that was so. However, I find the idea of Hitler forbearing to use this or that weapon because he liked us rather implausible.


Early on, before the beginning of the war, Hitler did try to court the Brits as he did consider the Anglo-Saxon race to be pure and superior and thought that appealing to this sense of racial superiority he would win them over.

Hitler was an incredibly delusional man. He had an inflated sense of the role the Royals played in the decision making process of the UK government. Hence the courting of Wallis Simpson.


----------



## Langham

SG_67 said:


> Early on, before the beginning of the war, Hitler did try to court the Brits as he did consider the Anglo-Saxon race to be pure and superior and thought that appealing to this sense of racial superiority he would win them over.
> 
> Hitler was an incredibly delusional man. He had an inflated sense of the role the Royals played in the decision making process of the UK government. Hence the courting of Wallis Simpson.


It was however a slightly two-way thing. Before the war, fascism held a dangerous attraction for various establishment and upper-class figures, whose loyalty thereafter was always questionable. The Mosleys were prominent fifth columnists, but there were many others, including, it seems, the Governor of the Bank of England, whose questionable activities are mentioned in the following article. It also mentions an apparent German peace initiative in 1941.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/the-nazis-british-bankers-1275885.html
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/02/27/nazi-sympathisers-britain_n_4867341.html


----------



## tocqueville

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Re: Sassoon.
> 
> I agree with Chouan
> 
> The question arises, how many odes, poems and stories were there from soldiers who supported the war, who weren't pacifists, who weren't suffering mental problems and who didn't have shell shock?


And then there were the ones, like Owens, who got killed.


----------



## tocqueville

Chouan said:


> Are you asserting that because an overseas Empire exists that it must therefore necessarily be wicked?
> 
> One could argue that the American Revolution was engineered by an economic elite in the Americas for whom independence would have been personally advantageous, and who, through clever propaganda, convinced the majority of the rest of the white population that independence was in their interests as well.


Perhaps yes, an overseas empire is intrinsically wicked, in that it is wicked to force another people into submission and have them accept that their interests must be subordinated to those of their imperial overlords, usually for the sake of economic greed seasoned with vainglory. The British Empire was almost entirely acquired to make rich men richer, although it was sugar coated and justified with/by racism, nationalism, and religion. It is one thing to want to trade with the Chinese and Indians, for example. It is wicked to shoot them, over turn their government, meddle in their affairs, and invade their lands for the purpose of making sure that trade is as single-sided advantageous as possible. It really was all about money, and what I've just described has to do with the boundary between a business transaction and armed burglary. I'd argue it's doubly wicked to then present the crime as if it were for the colonized peoples' own good, whether presented in Christian terms, racist terms, or liberal ideology (à la J.S. Mill). I credit the real Tocqueville for at least acknowledging that France's conquest of Algeria was destroying the country and did Algerians no good, even though he thought it necessary to pursue the conquest through to the end.

I have never studied the American Revolution as an adult and am not familiar with the academic historiography (as opposed to the propaganda that formed such an important part of my civic education as a child growing up in a town named for a Revolutionary war hero, sandwiched between Philadelphia and Valley Forge). Still, your hypothesis regarding the Revolution sounds familiar and strikes me as plausible, especially when you consider the wealth of the Founding Fathers and the nature of the issues they decried. For example, they couched what was essentially an attack on the East India Company's tea monopoly in terms of a struggle for "liberty." We don't need Marx to explain to us why that stinks.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Chouan said:


> One could argue that the American Revolution was engineered by an economic elite in the Americas for whom independence would have been personally advantageous, and who, through clever propaganda, convinced the majority of the rest of the white population that independence was in their interests as well.


Yes, one could argue that, and Charles Beard did. But his argument has been rejected by modern historians.


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> Perhaps yes, an overseas empire is intrinsically wicked, in that it is wicked to force another people into submission and have them accept that their interests must be subordinated to those of their imperial overlords, usually for the sake of economic greed seasoned with vainglory. The British Empire was almost entirely acquired to make rich men richer, although it was sugar coated and justified with/by racism, nationalism, and religion. It is one thing to want to trade with the Chinese and Indians, for example. It is wicked to shoot them, over turn their government, meddle in their affairs, and invade their lands for the purpose of making sure that trade is as single-sided advantageous as possible. It really was all about money, and what I've just described has to do with the boundary between a business transaction and armed burglary. I'd argue it's doubly wicked to then present the crime as if it were for the colonized peoples' own good, whether presented in Christian terms, racist terms, or liberal ideology (à la J.S. Mill). I credit the real Tocqueville for at least acknowledging that France's conquest of Algeria was destroying the country and did Algerians no good, even though he thought it necessary to pursue the conquest through to the end.
> 
> I have never studied the American Revolution as an adult and am not familiar with the academic historiography (as opposed to the propaganda that formed such an important part of my civic education as a child growing up in a town named for a Revolutionary war hero, sandwiched between Philadelphia and Valley Forge). Still, your hypothesis regarding the Revolution sounds familiar and strikes me as plausible, especially when you consider the wealth of the Founding Fathers and the nature of the issues they decried. For example, they couched what was essentially an attack on the East India Company's tea monopoly in terms of a struggle for "liberty." We don't need Marx to explain to us why that stinks.


So you would accept that America's overseas Empire is also wicked? AS I've repeatedly pointed out in this forum, the US has a far bigger overseas Empire than Britain has. Viz Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Alaska, Guam, US Virgin Islands etc. In all of these cases the US seized the territory without the consent or say so of the local inhabitants, sometimes by force, sometime by purchase in the case of Alaska, and have exploited them for the benefit of the US.


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> Perhaps yes, an overseas empire is intrinsically wicked, in that it is wicked to force another people into submission and have them accept that their interests must be subordinated to those of their imperial overlords, usually for the sake of economic greed seasoned with vainglory. The British Empire was almost entirely acquired to make rich men richer, although it was sugar coated and justified with/by racism, nationalism, and religion. It is one thing to want to trade with the Chinese and Indians, for example. It is wicked to shoot them, over turn their government, meddle in their affairs, and invade their lands for the purpose of making sure that trade is as single-sided advantageous as possible. It really was all about money, and what I've just described has to do with the boundary between a business transaction and armed burglary. I'd argue it's doubly wicked to then present the crime as if it were for the colonized peoples' own good, whether presented in Christian terms, racist terms, or liberal ideology (à la J.S. Mill). I credit the real Tocqueville for at least acknowledging that France's conquest of Algeria was destroying the country and did Algerians no good, even though he thought it necessary to pursue the conquest through to the end.
> 
> I have never studied the American Revolution as an adult and am not familiar with the academic historiography (as opposed to the propaganda that formed such an important part of my civic education as a child growing up in a town named for a Revolutionary war hero, sandwiched between Philadelphia and Valley Forge). Still, your hypothesis regarding the Revolution sounds familiar and strikes me as plausible, especially when you consider the wealth of the Founding Fathers and the nature of the issues they decried. For example, they couched what was essentially an attack on the East India Company's tea monopoly in terms of a struggle for "liberty." We don't need Marx to explain to us why that stinks.


In the example of India, was there an Indian government, or Nation? Did India exist in anything more than a geographical expression? Was Britain's hegemony in India inherently worse than that of the Moghuls. or the Mahrattas? Did Britain ever actually invade and conquer India? The only example I can find is Scinde, in 1843. Indeed, when India gained it's independence in 1947, India then invaded and conquered Goa and Hyderabad, which were both independent states not ruled by Britain. Was that also wicked?


----------



## Chouan

Mike Petrik said:


> Yes, one could argue that, and Charles Beard did. But his argument has been rejected by modern historians.


Care to give an example?


----------



## Mike Petrik

Chouan said:


> Care to give an example?


Not especially, since I have real work to do. 
But feel free to do a Google search, especially focusing on college history department websites. What you will find is that your proposed thesis is basically sourced in Beard's scholarship, and while that scholarship was influential for several decades, his fundamental thesis is now considered well outside the mainstream of academic scholarship. Since the discovery of numerous errors in his data, his findings are now generally cited only by ideologues rather than serious historians.


----------



## Chouan

Mike Petrik said:


> Not especially, since I have real work to do.
> But feel free to do a Google search, especially focusing on college history department websites.
> What you will find is that your proposed thesis is basically sourced in Beard's scholarship, and while that scholarship was influential for several decades, it has become increasingly understood as wrongheaded as his "errors" were discovered. His fundamental thesis is now considered well outside the mainstream of academic scholarship and is generally cited favorably only by ideologues rather than serious historians.


1) It isn't.
2) Who benefited? The ordinary Americans? Or the the American elite?
3) Serious historians? American historians? Or international Historians?
4) Suggesting that one look for evidence one's self is usually a deflection rather than a refutation.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Chouan said:


> 1) It isn't.
> 2) Who benefited? The ordinary Americans? Or the the American elite?
> 3) Serious historians? American historians? Or international Historians?
> 4) Suggesting that one look for evidence one's self is usually a deflection rather than a refutation.


Stop behaving like a jerk. You provided no evidence whatsoever.


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> 1) It isn't.
> 2) Who benefited? The ordinary Americans? Or the the American elite?
> 3) Serious historians? American historians? Or international Historians?
> 4) Suggesting that one look for evidence one's self is usually a deflection rather than a refutation.


If memory serves me correctly, both Robert E. Brown and Charles Warren, among others, punctured holes in the Beardian analysis. It is criticized as being too narrowly focused and single-issue centric, with undue emphasis on progressive economic-based arguments that often ignored the political philosophy, personal perspective, integrity, and _noblesse oblige_ of many of the Founders.

Many (all?) of the Founders were exceedingly wealthy, and would have remained so if Britain did not relinquish her colonies. To name a few, Washington, Jefferson, Mason, Adams, Franklin, Morris, Hancock, Rutledge, Carroll, Lee, and Rush were very well-off, yet they took active roles in the rebellion against Britain. Why would they risk all - and "all" meant a helluva lot! - when they had little to gain, and were assured of remaining very affluent if the status quo continued? In addition, were so many American soldiers, shopkeepers, journalists, farmers, lawyers, and laborers - as well as colonial political leaders of all socioeconomic levels - so ignorant that they could easily be deceived by those scheming wealthy rabble-rousers?

To focus disproportionately on economic reasons (whether real or chimerical), and ignore other principal reasons for opposition to British policies, is far too tendentious and detracts from such arguments (especially when there's much counter evidence).


----------



## Tiger

Mike Petrik said:


> Stop behaving like a jerk. You provided no evidence whatsoever.


I remember being involved in what became a very bitter economic debate many months ago, and what I'll never forget were the a) personal attacks against me that didn't meet with opprobrium because some place politics over integrity and decency, and b) despite the frantic attacks and accusations against me, very little evidence was ever brought to bear to refute my positions. Lots of screaming that I was wrong, but little evidence.

Some people actually sought to refute my contentions by denying me the right to hold such positions because I wasn't an economist! (As if everyone here is an expert on all of the topics that they/we pontificate on daily.) In fact, it wasn't until Shaver entered the fray and made many salient comments that some of the yelping began to subside. Nearly made me renounce my AAAC membership.

Mike, your concise but potent response above is one I should've used back then!


----------



## tocqueville

Chouan said:


> So you would accept that America's overseas Empire is also wicked? AS I've repeatedly pointed out in this forum, the US has a far bigger overseas Empire than Britain has. Viz Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Alaska, Guam, US Virgin Islands etc. In all of these cases the US seized the territory without the consent or say so of the local inhabitants, sometimes by force, sometime by purchase in the case of Alaska, and have exploited them for the benefit of the US.


Yes, wicked, although--and I realize this sounds like a cop out--some things are more wicked than others. First of all, except for Hawaii, these were all parts of other Empires that the US simply took or bought. Hawaii alone was captured for the sake of direct material gain, and to my mind, the acquisition of Hawaii was the most ignoble of these actions by far. Any way, at least it's fair to say that America has treated its possessions fairly well and, I believe, would grant them independence if they so desire. Puerto Rico has held several referenda on the subject. Why? The US gives far more than it receives from them in terms of various financial subsidies. The people aren't exploited, though they may at times be neglected or discriminated against. More to the point: If the locals started agitating for independence, I can't imagine anyone would resist so long as they weren't violent, or didn't agitate for removing US military bases, which, from the US point of view, is the real value of those possessions, not the natural resources or people. Guam isn't India.


----------



## tocqueville

Chouan said:


> In the example of India, was there an Indian government, or Nation? Did India exist in anything more than a geographical expression? Was Britain's hegemony in India inherently worse than that of the Moghuls. or the Mahrattas? Did Britain ever actually invade and conquer India? The only example I can find is Scinde, in 1843. Indeed, when India gained it's independence in 1947, India then invaded and conquered Goa and Hyderabad, which were both independent states not ruled by Britain. Was that also wicked?


Britain usually managed to avoid killing Indians by having Indians kill Indians, or better yet by manipulating politics to Britain's favor. That kept expenses down, for maintaining mercenary armies was costly. That said, there were frequent battles. Look further into the 18th century, starting with the conquest of Bengal and through the first decades of the 19th century and the establishment of the Raj. Step by step, through various machinations that were always underpinned by violence or the threat of it, Britain seized control, all to enrich the stock holders of the East India Company, and later to preserve a status quo that was highly lucrative to say the least. Was Britain more wicked than the Moghuls? That's debatable. But so what? Similarly, so what if there was no "India" at the time the British took over? There were numerous states and a grand civilization...millions of people that Britain had no business holding up at gun point.


----------



## Chouan

Mike Petrik said:


> Stop behaving like a jerk. You provided no evidence whatsoever.


I gave an opinion. You said that I was wrong, and, suggested that you were far too busy to support your contention and suggested that I look it up myself, which rather implies that you think my time far less valuable than yours. Interesting. Now you say that I'm behaving like a jerk. A very mature, intelligent, considered response. I'm so impressed with your response that I think that I'll have to reconsider my view of you and your opinions. Do you usually refer to people whose opinions differ from yours as jerks? In everyday life, I mean, or just in forums like these?
An intelligent, educated man, or an arrogant [email protected]? I'll have to think about it.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Chouan said:


> I gave an opinion. You said that I was wrong, and, suggested that you were far too busy to support your contention and suggested that I look it up myself, which rather implies that you think my time far less valuable than yours. Interesting. Now you say that I'm behaving like a jerk. A very mature, intelligent, considered response. I'm so impressed with your response that I think that I'll have to reconsider my view of you and your opinions. Do you usually refer to people whose opinions differ from yours as jerks? In everyday life, I mean, or just in forums like these?
> An intelligent, educated man, or an arrogant [email protected]? I'll have to think about it.


You made an intentionally provocative assertion supported by nothing. I countered with a contrary assertion, supported only by a reference to an historian and a suggestion that you research his work. You invited me to further support my assertion. I declined, honestly citing workload. You respond by asserting that my decline was evidence of not being able to support my assertion, rudely implying that my workload explanation was dishonest, even though you cited nothing whatsoever to support your assertions, and still haven't. This is behaving like a jerk and I said so. Then you say that I actually called you a jerk and am therefore arrogant. Your response to *my* putative arrogance is to threaten me with altering *your* opinion of me. Got it.


----------



## Langham

tocqueville said:


> Britain usually managed to avoid killing Indians by having Indians kill Indians, or better yet by manipulating politics to Britain's favor. That kept expenses down, for maintaining mercenary armies was costly. That said, there were frequent battles. Look further into the 18th century, starting with the conquest of Bengal and through the first decades of the 19th century and the establishment of the Raj. Step by step, through various machinations that were always underpinned by violence or the threat of it, Britain seized control, all to enrich the stock holders of the East India Company, and later to preserve a status quo that was highly lucrative to say the least. Was Britain more wicked than the Moghuls? That's debatable. But so what? Similarly, so what if there was no "India" at the time the British took over? There were numerous states and a grand civilization...millions of people that Britain had no business holding up at gun point.


Perhaps you are applying 21st-century notions of 'wickedness' to events in the 18th and 19th centuries? The British were moving into a power vacuum created by the decline of the Muhgals (themselves earlier invaders from beyond India) and if they had not, someone else would have done - it was not a case of destroying all that had gone before 'at gun point',but rather of adapting it to new circumstances.

Certain classes of society were enriched greatly by empire, but I have read studies which suggest that overall, the balance for the nation may have been fairly neutral.


----------



## Chouan

Tiger said:


> If memory serves me correctly, both Robert E. Brown and Charles Warren, among others, punctured holes in the Beardian analysis. It is criticized as being too narrowly focused and single-issue centric, with undue emphasis on progressive economic-based arguments that often ignored the political philosophy, personal perspective, integrity, and _noblesse oblige_ of many of the Founders.
> 
> Many (all?) of the Founders were exceedingly wealthy, and would have remained so if Britain did not relinquish her colonies. To name a few, Washington, Jefferson, Mason, Adams, Franklin, Morris, Hancock, Rutledge, Carroll, Lee, and Rush were very well-off, yet they took active roles in the rebellion against Britain. Why would they risk all - and "all" meant a helluva lot! - when they had little to gain, and were assured of remaining very affluent if the status quo continued? In addition, were so many American soldiers, shopkeepers, journalists, farmers, lawyers, and laborers - as well as colonial political leaders of all socioeconomic levels - so ignorant that they could easily be deceived by those scheming wealthy rabble-rousers?
> 
> To focus disproportionately on economic reasons (whether real or chimerical), and ignore other principal reasons for opposition to British policies, is far too tendentious and detracts from such arguments (especially when there's much counter evidence).


I'm not suggesting that they were motivated by economic reasons. My argument was that they were an economic, social and cultural elite whose political ambitions were limited by the set up as was. For them to become the political elite that they wanted to be, things in the Colonies would have to change such that they could realise their political ambitions. Independence would give them the ability to gain the political hegemony that they desired. They had a lot to gain from independence; political power to match their economic power! 
The followers had nothing to gain in any concrete sense, apart from the removal of the barrier against further expansion West, and the safeguarding of their slave holdings, as slavery was already not recognised in law in Britain.


----------



## Chouan

Mike Petrik said:


> You made an intentionally provocative assertion supported by nothing. I countered with a contrary assertion, supported only by a reference to an historian and a suggestion that you research his work. You invited me to further support my assertion. I declined, honestly citing workload. You respond by asserting that my decline was evidence of not being able to support my assertion, rudely implying that my workload explanation was dishonest, even though you cited nothing whatsoever to support your assertions, and still haven't. This is behaving like a jerk and I said so. Then you say that I actually called you a jerk and am therefore arrogant. Your response to *my* putative arrogance is to threaten me with altering *your* opinion of me. Got it.


Did I? You think that I made an statement that was meant to be provocative? It couldn't possibly be that I expressed an opinion? Your response was expressed in an arrogant tone, intentional or not. Quibbling about whether you said I am a jerk or behaving like a jerk doesn't change the offensive tone or manner of your response. Do you usually tell people with whom you are in disagreement that they are behaving like jerks? Or do you reserve such language for the anonymity of a forum?


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> Britain usually managed to avoid killing Indians by having Indians kill Indians, or better yet by manipulating politics to Britain's favor. That kept expenses down, for maintaining mercenary armies was costly. That said, there were frequent battles. Look further into the 18th century, starting with the conquest of Bengal and through the first decades of the 19th century and the establishment of the Raj. Step by step, through various machinations that were always underpinned by violence or the threat of it, Britain seized control, all to enrich the stock holders of the East India Company, and later to preserve a status quo that was highly lucrative to say the least. Was Britain more wicked than the Moghuls? That's debatable. But so what? Similarly, so what if there was no "India" at the time the British took over? There were numerous states and a grand civilization...millions of people that Britain had no business holding up at gun point.


Until the mid 18th century Britain's position in India was as one player amongst dozens. The Emperor in Delhi, the various Mahratta warlords, the Nizams, the Nawabs the Rajputs etc etc, as well as the Dutch, the Arabs, the French, the Afghans, the Burmese, the Nepalese and the Portuguese. The wars of that period were all started by one or more of the other players and Britain was fortunate enough to emerge by the end of the 18th century as one of the winners, holding lands in Bengal as Jagirdars, as well as extending their landholdings in the South at the expense of the French and their allies. By 1800 Britain was one player among eight, perhaps, without including the various smaller independent rulers who were satellites or allies of the major players. You appear to suggest that Britain set out to conquer India, rather than a series of events, rarely if ever started by Britain, leading to British hegemony.
The first British act of aggression was the Fourth Mysore War, a pre-emptive attack in response to Tipu Sahib preparing for offensive war in conjunction with the French. The previous three all starting by Mysore's invasion of British or allied territory. The Mahratta wars were all started by the Mahrattas, and in the 19th century the first British war of aggression in India was the invasion and conquest of Scinde in the 1840's, 1843 perhaps. By the time that Britain had defeated the two invasions by the Sikhs, also defeating invasions from Burma and Nepal. Britain had gained hegemony, although not necessarily rule or control over most of India; Hyderabad, for example, remaining independent until 1947.
I can't see how a war between the Nizam and the Mahrattas, for example, or the Sikhs and the Moguls, or the Sikhs and the Mahrattas, or the Mahrattas and the Rajputs, or whichever claimant to the throne of Delhi against another claimant, could be described as Britain having Indians kill Indians. It would be the same as suggesting that a war between the Shoshone and the Sioux was Americans having American Indians kill American Indians. Warfare in India was endemic, with probably more soldiers per head of population than any other society. That Britain benefited from that situation is obvious, but that hardly makes British rule, of itself, wicked, any more than America gaining hegemony in America is wicked.


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> Yes, wicked, although--and I realize this sounds like a cop out--some things are more wicked than others. First of all, except for Hawaii, these were all parts of other Empires that the US simply took or bought. Hawaii alone was captured for the sake of direct material gain, and to my mind, the acquisition of Hawaii was the most ignoble of these actions by far. Any way, at least it's fair to say that America has treated its possessions fairly well and, I believe, would grant them independence if they so desire. Puerto Rico has held several referenda on the subject. Why? The US gives far more than it receives from them in terms of various financial subsidies. The people aren't exploited, though they may at times be neglected or discriminated against. More to the point: If the locals started agitating for independence, I can't imagine anyone would resist so long as they weren't violent, or didn't agitate for removing US military bases, which, from the US point of view, is the real value of those possessions, not the natural resources or people. Guam isn't India.


You appear to be suggesting that American colonial control is, on balance, actually rather benign. Rather like Britain's colonial empire in most respects then.


----------



## tocqueville

Chouan said:


> You appear to be suggesting that American colonial control is, on balance, actually rather benign. Rather like Britain's colonial empire in most respects then.


Look, I'm willing to concede that all things are relative. In neither the US or the UK case are we talking about the Belgian Congo, the Japanese in China, or, England in Ireland centuries ago. Guam, by the way, was occupied by the Japanese, and from what I understand, the Japanese were so awful that the Guamians were delighted to return to the American fold. The Philippines similarly rallied to the American flag during the war, which must say something about US rule versus Japanese. But let's also agree that there is something intrinsically wicked about taking control of and ruling another people against their will. There's always force involved, and in most cases the enterprise is to advance base motives, such as greed. Power. Glory. All the more so if the people are on the far side of the world, where I would argue one has little business being. These aren't neighbors.

With regard to the US, Empire wasn't at all benign in Central America in the 1920s-50s, or with regards to the indigenous populations of the continental US from 1776 through to well into the 20th century. I doubt it was particularly kind to the Hawaiians at the beginning, and the US role in the Philippines was not benign at least at the beginning. But by and large, yes, US policy has become benign, perhaps because there wasn't much to exploit, and these conquests were not about getting rich (US interventions in Central America notwithstanding). All, moreover, have been granted US citizenship, I believe, which gives them real rights and protections, plus a good deal of local autonomy. And everyone benefits from the full panoply of the US welfare state, such that it is. I'd go further than that and say that at least for the indigenous peoples, they've become a protected class. Every time I fill out an application for something, anything, there's a box to check if I am a Pacific islander, Inuit, or Indian. Believe me, if you can check that box, astounding things happen.

(Actually, the argument is made that Puerto Ricans only received citizenship so that they would become eligible for conscription in WWI. I don't know if that's true.)

You make it sound as if British control over India just sort of happened, and Britain was just one of many Indian players. I think that's nonsense. The very reason behind every step Britain made to obtain control was predatory capitalism seasoned with racism, a dash of religious zeal, and a touch of nationalism. Think of it has a hostile corporate takeover, only with paid agents infiltrating the stockholders' meeting, and mercenaries there to gun down dissenters. We can find comparable instances in Africa, although there was less money to be made, so the profit motive was less important relative to other drivers. But whatever the British did for Indians (or Africans), don't forget the violence and the racism. Benign? Relatively, yes. But good? Innocent? Well intentioned? Not at all.

On the other hand, there's this:


----------



## tocqueville

Langham said:


> Perhaps you are applying 21st-century notions of 'wickedness' to events in the 18th and 19th centuries? The British were moving into a power vacuum created by the decline of the Muhgals (themselves earlier invaders from beyond India) and if they had not, someone else would have done - it was not a case of destroying all that had gone before 'at gun point',but rather of adapting it to new circumstances.
> 
> Certain classes of society were enriched greatly by empire, but I have read studies which suggest that overall, the balance for the nation may have been fairly neutral.


That's an odd argument. Agreed, if I were a living in Georgian or Victorian Britain I'd have an altogether different notion of wickedness, and I'd most likely think it entirely appropriate to subject brown-skinned heathens to whatever suited me, especially if it's good for the City and gave my business cheap goods and new markets. And there's that wonderful tea. Still, I wonder if British public opinion would have thought differently of what went on had there been tv journalists conducting investigations, or people tweeting about massacres, or abuses in factories, or the fate of English officers' colored concubines and their offspring. Have we all changed? Or is it that we all have more information?


----------



## MaxBuck

tocqueville said:


> Have we all changed? Or is it that we all have more information?


More information seems like the better explanation; much as I'd like to think otherwise we're still the same sinful (read: "fallible," all you atheists) species we always have been. And although we might blanch at the notion of Fox News and MSNBC joining the more responsible news entities, there's no question that more points of view are available on news of the day than ever before, which gives the average person a much broader context on incidents both at home and abroad. In addition, in the age of the internet the court of public opinion is right at the doorstep of every world leader (except maybe those in Cuba and North Korea).


----------



## Langham

tocqueville said:


> That's an odd argument. Agreed, if I were a living in Georgian or Victorian Britain I'd have an altogether different notion of wickedness, and I'd most likely think it entirely appropriate to subject brown-skinned heathens to whatever suited me, especially if it's good for the City and gave my business cheap goods and new markets. And there's that wonderful tea. Still, I wonder if British public opinion would have thought differently of what went on had there been tv journalists conducting investigations, or people tweeting about massacres, or abuses in factories, or the fate of English officers' colored concubines and their offspring. Have we all changed? Or is it that we all have more information?


As you will know, in Victorian Britain especially there were widely held beliefs concerning the benefit to 'heathen savages' of administration by the white man. That was the white man's burden. Such casual racism diminished the possibility of wickedness. Nowadays of course such sentiments may strike one immediately as self-serving claptrap, yet at the time, for many people, would have been no more than a statement of fact. So there would have been no notion of wickedness, and as you suggest, the general public in any case were not connected by mass media to events far away. If something dreadful happened in the next town or county, such as a mining disaster, that would be noted, but a famine in the Deccan or an uprising that had to be suppressed in the most expedient way somewhere far away might never even be reported. There were plenty of reasons to be so concerned with local events - poverty, industrial turmoil, cholera epidemics etc etc - that little else would register.


----------



## tocqueville

"Such casual racism diminished the possibility of wickedness."

Huh?


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> "Such casual racism diminished the possibility of wickedness."
> 
> Huh?


Paternalistic racism, the idea that the dark skinned people need to be looked after until such time that western civilising influences, ie Britain, has raised them a condition in which they could aspire to western civilised behaviour themselves. Until then they were ignorant "benighted heathen" and needed to be nurtured. If one sees one's role as nurturing and protecting inferior races, then wickedness, ie deliberate badness is unlikely to occur. I'm not suggesting that racism is ever a good thing, paternalistic or otherwise, but seeking to explain what may appear to be a paradox.


----------



## Langham

^ Exactly so - I was wondering how best/whether to explain but you have done it better than I.


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> That's an odd argument. Agreed, if I were a living in Georgian or Victorian Britain I'd have an altogether different notion of wickedness, and I'd most likely think it entirely appropriate to subject brown-skinned heathens to whatever suited me, especially if it's good for the City and gave my business cheap goods and new markets. And there's that wonderful tea. Still, I wonder if British public opinion would have thought differently of what went on had there been tv journalists conducting investigations, or people tweeting about massacres, or abuses in factories, or _*the fate of English officers' colored concubines and their offspring.*_ Have we all changed? Or is it that we all have more information?


English or British? Or indeed American, viz Sir David Ochterlony and Alexander Gardner. The fate of British officers wives or concubines, if by coloured you mean Indian, would probably have been the same as it would if they'd been the wives or concubines of Indians. The fate of their offspring, like Lord Liverpool's mother, or Sir James Skinner, would depend on the status of their father. Certainly until the 1830's legitimate children of mixed British/Indian heritage did reasonably well in British India's hierarchy. Illegitimate children would be in the same situation as an illegitimate child in Britain, dependent upon the acknowledgement of their parentage. I suggest that you read "White Moghuls" for more details https://www.amazon.co.uk/White-Mughals-Betrayal-18th-century-Eighteenth-century/dp/0006550967 .
I'd be interested in your view of "massacres", if one disregards Amritsar for now, what massacres are you referring to? There were, of course episodes of extreme brutality during what is referred to as the Indian Mutiny in retaliation for the massacres of British civilians at it's outbreak at places like Meerut, and everywhere else where the Mutiny occurred, but killing soldiers in reprisals for they and their comrades having massacred civilians isn't, I think, quite what you're referring to. 
Amritsar is a curious case, General Dyer, who ordered his Indian troops to open fire on the unarmed crowd was sent home after the enquiry into the episode, which the British government condemned without equivocation, being diagnosed as suffering from we would now call Alzheimers. It was hardly an instrument of British policy. Interestingly enough, both Dyer (born in India of Irish parentage and educated in Ireland before joining the Army) and O'Dwyer the Lieutenant Governor of the Punjab, Dyer's superior and under whose orders he was acting, were both Irish.


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> You make it sound as if British control over India just sort of happened, and Britain was just one of many Indian players. I think that's nonsense. The very reason behind every step Britain made to obtain control was predatory capitalism seasoned with racism, a dash of religious zeal, and a touch of nationalism. Think of it has a hostile corporate takeover, only with paid agents infiltrating the stockholders' meeting, and mercenaries there to gun down dissenters. We can find comparable instances in Africa, although there was less money to be made, so the profit motive was less important relative to other drivers. But whatever the British did for Indians (or Africans), don't forget the violence and the racism. Benign? Relatively, yes. But good? Innocent? Well intentioned? Not at all.


You are free to think it nonsense, of course. But I would suggest that you look at the History of Britain in India. A minor player from the 16th to 17th century, with a tiny precarious trading post at Surat, then Charles II acquired Bombay from Portugal as part of his wife's dowry. Then "factories" (trading posts) were established at the invitation of the local princes at Madras, then Calcutta. By the mid 18th century Britain had been involved as a very minor trader in India for two centuries. Hardly predatory capitalism. It was the 7 Years War which changed things, with France using the war to try to seize Madras and Calcutta from their own trading posts of Pondicherry and Chandernagore, in alliance with the Nawab of the Carnatic. War escalated and Britain became more involved militarily. There was certainly no attempt at empire building, or even predatory capitalism until the conflicts between the main players allowed Britain and France to conclude their war, which ended with France's defeat and Britain gaining in territory and power. Even then it was events elsewhere, the Afghan invasion, defeating the Mahrattas at Panipat, for example, that allowed Britain a chance to change from a very minor player to a player, then a major player and then on the defeat of the Sikh invasions, essentially the only player. 
There was no masterplan of conquest, no business model of territorial acquisition. Even with the assumed superiority of formed drilled soldiers over masses of feudal cavalry, the HEIC wouldn't have had a chance if the Indian princes hadn't always been so keen to do each other brown. By the time that Britain had become dominant in India, the HEIC had simply become Britain's government in India, and hadn't returned a dividend for years. When the HEIC ceased to exist in the late 1850's, it was simply a recognition that India was administered by Britain. Certainly from the 1840's onwards British India was run with the principle of paternalism, with an eye on security from Russia influence, hence British India's involvement in Afghanistan in 1839 and 1879. 
Benign? Arguably. Well intentioned? Absolutely. Flawed? Of course.


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> Look, I'm willing to concede that all things are relative. In neither the US or the UK case are we talking about the Belgian Congo, the Japanese in China, or, England in Ireland centuries ago.


Would you mind explaining to me why you've given "England in Ireland centuries ago" as an example of wickedness.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> ^ Exactly so - I was wondering how best/whether to explain but you have done it better than I.


Thank you for saying so.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> ...
> Amritsar is a curious case, General Dyer, who ordered his Indian troops to open fire on the unarmed crowd was sent home after the enquiry into the episode, which the British government condemned without equivocation, being diagnosed as suffering from we would now call Alzheimers. It was hardly an instrument of British policy. Interestingly enough, both Dyer (born in India of Irish parentage and educated in Ireland before joining the Army) and O'Dwyer the Lieutenant Governor of the Punjab, Dyer's superior and under whose orders he was acting, were both Irish.


The Irish (and the Scots also) were perhaps more deeply involved in the empire than the English.

Before I met her my wife knew General Dyer's daughter, who was by then quite elderly. By all accounts she had absolutely no knowledge at all of her father's involvement in what was by any interpretation an awful massacre. Some blamed agitators for it, but Dyer was the man responsible.


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> I'm not suggesting that they were motivated by economic reasons. My argument was that they were an economic, social and cultural elite whose political ambitions were limited by the set up as was. For them to become the political elite that they wanted to be, things in the Colonies would have to change such that they could realise their political ambitions. Independence would give them the ability to gain the political hegemony that they desired. They had a lot to gain from independence; political power to match their economic power!
> The followers had nothing to gain in any concrete sense, apart from the removal of the barrier against further expansion West, and the safeguarding of their slave holdings, as slavery was already not recognised in law in Britain.


Some of the Founders already had "political power" and many did not want any such power...

You are free to cling to such specious suppositions, however, regardless of any extant evidence.


----------



## Kingstonian

Chouan said:


> Paternalistic racism, the idea that the dark skinned people need to be looked after until such time that western civilising influences, ie Britain, has raised them a condition in which they could aspire to western civilised behaviour themselves. Until then they were ignorant "benighted heathen" and needed to be nurtured. If one sees one's role as nurturing and protecting inferior races, then wickedness, ie deliberate badness is unlikely to occur. I'm not suggesting that racism is ever a good thing, paternalistic or otherwise, but seeking to explain what may appear to be a paradox.


Or Cecil Rhodes view. Not PC but patriotic and good for UK business

"I contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. Just fancy those parts that are at present inhabited by the most despicable specimens of human beings what an alteration there would be if they were brought under Anglo-Saxon influence, look again at the extra employment a new country added to our dominions gives."

The Victorian Galton wanted to put Chinese into Africa. He thought they were more go ahead than "Hindoos" and a good alternative to " lazy, palavering savages"

https://galton.org/letters/africa-for-chinese/AfricaForTheChinese.htm


----------



## Langham

^ The Chinese are there now, whether we like it or not.

When I was in the Gambia I noticed how the women did everything. The men seemed to pass the time of day in fairly undemanding ways, chewing the fat. Any problem was passed over to women - 'mammy palaver'.


----------



## Chouan

Tiger said:


> Some of the Founders already had "political power" and many did not want any such power...
> 
> You are free to cling to such specious suppositions, however, regardless of any extant evidence.


Specious in the sense that you disagree with them? You're suggesting that there is no evidence, nothing at all, to suggest that the political and economic elite who sought independence had no regard for any benefits that they might personally gain with independence? None of them?
If, as you suggest, the Founders already had the political power that they wanted, or did not want any, why did they want independence? A significant minority of the colonists of the Americas not only didn't want independence, but fought those who did.
The colonists in Canada certainly didn't consider themselves to be living in some kind of tyranny that they needed independence from.


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> Specious in the sense that you disagree with them? You're suggesting that there is no evidence, nothing at all, to suggest that the political and economic elite who sought independence had no regard for any benefits that they might personally gain with independence? None of them?
> If, as you suggest, the Founders already had the political power that they wanted, or did not want any, why did they want independence? A significant minority of the colonists of the Americas not only didn't want independence, but fought those who did.
> The colonists in Canada certainly didn't consider themselves to be living in some kind of tyranny that they needed independence from.


No, specious in that you proffer theories lacking in logic or evidence...

Why would anyone want independence, Chouan? Why do you? Must there always be some nefarious, selfish rationale behind people's motives? You might want to read about George Mason, for instance - he's the antithesis of everything you've written on this topic.


----------



## Chouan

Tiger said:


> No, specious in that you proffer theories lacking in logic or evidence...
> 
> Why would anyone want independence, Chouan? Why do you? Must there always be some nefarious, selfish rationale behind people's motives? You might want to read about George Mason, for instance - he's the antithesis of everything you've written on this topic.


No logic in self-interest? No evidence? Are you suggesting that I need to search out texts and provide quotes that support my view?
Why indeed? Do I desire independence? From what? Have I suggested that there is anything nefarious about self-interest?
It does seem that the rather intemperate objections and reactions to my suggestions are based on some kind of chauvinistic defence of American heroes, rather than of historical personages, you know, real people, rather than flawless paragons. Even your chosen example of George Mason is a curious one, a slave-holder who thought slavery morally wrong, but who kept his slaves none the less. I assume that you think him without political or personal ambition? Otherwise I don't see your point. In any case, even if he really was the paragon of virtue that I assume you think him to be, does that in some way prove that none of the others were self-seeking? They were all politicians after all!


----------



## Kingstonian

Langham said:


> ^ The Chinese are there now, whether we like it or not.
> 
> When I was in the Gambia I noticed how the women did everything. The men seemed to pass the time of day in fairly undemanding ways, chewing the fat. Any problem was passed over to women - 'mammy palaver'.


Yes the Chinese are there and in many cases were as poverty stricken as the Africans to start out - but they are industrious. China has no guilt about extracting the natural resources it wants but they will provide an infrastructure and pay off the key people in return.

"Palaver" reminds of the old film "Sanders of the River". Paul Robeson was not too keen on the final edit.


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> No logic in self-interest? No evidence? Are you suggesting that I need to search out texts and provide quotes that support my view?
> Why indeed? Do I desire independence? From what? Have I suggested that there is anything nefarious about self-interest?
> It does seem that the rather intemperate objections and reactions to my suggestions are based on some kind of chauvinistic defence of American heroes, rather than of historical personages, you know, real people, rather than flawless paragons. Even your chosen example of George Mason is a curious one, a slave-holder who thought slavery morally wrong, but who kept his slaves none the less. I assume that you think him without political or personal ambition? Otherwise I don't see your point. In any case, even if he really was the paragon of virtue that I assume you think him to be, does that in some way prove that none of the others were self-seeking? They were all politicians after all!


You castigated another member for not displaying evidence, yet you are quick to do the exact same thing you profess to abhor.

Yours was a not-so-thinly disguised swipe at the Founders. You were clear to exclude altruism or any other noble virtues to them. Please don't try to obfuscate here - we both know precisely what you meant, and it sure wasn't complimentary.

If you've read some of my prior posts on U.S. History, you'd know that I don't subscribe to "chauvinistic defenses of American heroes" or theories of "flawless paragons." That dog won't hunt...

Your narrow-minded ignorance in criticizing George Mason epitomizes slash-and-burn tactics. If you think your one sentence comment on Mason sums up the man, then your arrogance is exceeded only by your ignorance of the topic.

Stick your daggers into a more deserving target...


----------



## Chouan

Kingstonian said:


> Yes the Chinese are there and in many cases were as poverty stricken as the Africans to start out - but they are industrious. China has no guilt about extracting the natural resources it wants but they will provide an infrastructure and pay off the key people in return.
> 
> "Palaver" reminds of the old film "Sanders of the River". Paul Robeson was not too keen on the final edit.


And Jomo Kenyatta played one of the chiefs.


----------



## Chouan

Tiger said:


> You castigated another member for not displaying evidence, yet you are quick to do the exact same thing you profess to abhor.
> 
> Yours was a not-so-thinly disguised swipe at the Founders. You were clear to exclude altruism or any other noble virtues to them. Please don't try to obfuscate here - we both know precisely what you meant, and it sure wasn't complimentary.
> 
> If you've read some of my prior posts on U.S. History, you'd know that I don't subscribe to "chauvinistic defenses of American heroes" or theories of "flawless paragons." That dog won't hunt...
> 
> Your narrow-minded ignorance in criticizing George Mason epitomizes slash-and-burn tactics. If you think your one sentence comment on Mason sums up the man, then your arrogance is exceeded only by your ignorance of the topic.
> 
> Stick your daggers into a more deserving target...


There was no "swipe" at your heroes, although, clearly, criticism of your heroes is beyond the pale. In any case, suggesting that men acted through self interest isn't an attack on them! I'm a Historian, not a hero worshipper, studying real men not mythical constructs. They were men, imperfect men as all men are, not paragons nor saints. If you wish your myths to remain intact please disregard my posts.
Just for clarity, I asked another member for evidence when he dismissed my views, not chapter and verse, but some kind of evidence to support his contradiction of my view. THere was no "castigation". His response, that I was acting like a jerk, rather devalued any rational argument that he might have presented, not that he did, any more than you have.
Again. for clarity, I by no means considered that a one sentence comment on George Mason sums the man up, but even you must see that there were contradictions in the man's views. One could describe him as a radical Englishman of his time, only resident in America, like the rest of the Founding Fathers. I certainly didn't attack him, or stick a dagger into him; indeed, it might be helpful if you could point out where any suggestion of an attack might be in my post.
It would appear that my suggestion that your and Mike Petrik's defence of "American heroes", or figures in American mythology is one of chauvinism, not of Historical rationalism. They may have been "great men", who achieved what could be described as "great things", but they were men, not mythological creatures or demi-gods. You assert that you "*don't subscribe to "chauvinistic defenses of American heroes" or theories of "flawless paragons."*" but that is exactly what you are doing!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Dubya & The Marines...in case anyone was wondering!


----------



## SG_67

^ but it still is about that. Just a more in depth analysis with historical context!


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> There was no "swipe" at your heroes, although, clearly, criticism of your heroes is beyond the pale. In any case, suggesting that men acted through self interest isn't an attack on them! I'm a Historian, not a hero worshipper, studying real men not mythical constructs. They were men, imperfect men as all men are, not paragons nor saints. If you wish your myths to remain intact please disregard my posts.
> Just for clarity, I asked another member for evidence when he dismissed my views, not chapter and verse, but some kind of evidence to support his contradiction of my view. THere was no "castigation". His response, that I was acting like a jerk, rather devalued any rational argument that he might have presented, not that he did, any more than you have.
> Again. for clarity, I by no means considered that a one sentence comment on George Mason sums the man up, but even you must see that there were contradictions in the man's views. One could describe him as a radical Englishman of his time, only resident in America, like the rest of the Founding Fathers. I certainly didn't attack him, or stick a dagger into him; indeed, it might be helpful if you could point out where any suggestion of an attack might be in my post.
> It would appear that my suggestion that your and Mike Petrik's defence of "American heroes", or figures in American mythology is one of chauvinism, not of Historical rationalism. They may have been "great men", who achieved what could be described as "great things", but they were men, not mythological creatures or demi-gods. You assert that you "*don't subscribe to "chauvinistic defenses of American heroes" or theories of "flawless paragons."*" but that is exactly what you are doing!


You are beginning to sound much like the ad hominem attack-loving Keynesian ideologue from that infamous "economics" thread, who was unable or unwilling to concede that there may be differences of opinions on this and many other topics. Yet, he flailed away at anything and anyone who did not ascribe to his beliefs, including some of the legends of his supposed field (and of whom he appeared to know very little). I am acutely aware of the tendentious nature of many in academia; both of you epitomize the same arrogance, condescension, and intellectual closed-mindedness.

You purposely misrepresent my positions, so as to set up a straw man that you can attack. I've already answered your nonsensical charge about "heroes" et al., yet without an iota of proof you continue to put words in my mouth. I'll defend anything that I've written, but there is no need for me to defend what you dishonestly attempt to attribute to me.

You claim to be a "historian" but obviously not one of U.S. History, and one unable to see perspectives other than your own. (Since *you* were the one who sought to censor me on the thread referenced above due to the fact that I am not an economist, intellectual consistency demands that you should recuse yourself here, since you are not an American History professor. Either that, or apologize - one or the other would be the proper course for a man of character.)

Your lack of understanding regarding George Mason fails to inhibit you from opining on a topic of which you know little, and illustrates your inability to acknowledge that other viewpoints - factually based, unlike your broadsides - exist. To answer your question from above, you painted Mr. Mason as a hypocrite driven by personal and political ambition. That your characterization is wildly inaccurate is apparent to anyone who knows of Mason; my concern is that you once again attempt to distort both history and others' positions in order to make your own unsupportable political points.

I, nor Mr. Petrik, have ever described the Founders as anything remotely approximating "mythological creatures or demi-gods" or even implied such a thing. In fact, it is *you*, Chouan, that has written of the Founders as some monolithic group of self-seeking economic and political manipulators of the great unwashed. You are consistent in your dishonest tactics - first you distort your opponents' positions, then you attack that fabricated distortion. Since you are so fond of requesting evidence of others (despite frequently holding yourself to a very different standard), can you please illustrate where I have regarded the Founders so monolithically? As one who is _very_ sympathetic to the Antifederalist viewpoint, I necessarily *cannot* hold the beliefs that you ascribe to me. But, please don't let _*that *_get in the way of your intellectual sleight-of-hand&#8230;


----------



## Tiger

SG_67 said:


> ^ but it still is about that. Just a more in depth analysis with historical context!


It is funny how many twists and turns this thread has taken, with posters jumping in and dropping off as the topic morphs into something tangential. Whatever one's beliefs, an outsider will never know what we've banged around in this thread, simply by looking at the title...


----------



## Chouan

Tiger said:


> You are beginning to sound much like the ad hominem attack-loving Keynesian ideologue from that infamous "economics" thread, who was unable or unwilling to concede that there may be differences of opinions on this and many other topics. Yet, he flailed away at anything and anyone who did not ascribe to his beliefs, including some of the legends of his supposed field (and of whom he appeared to know very little). I am acutely aware of the tendentious nature of many in academia; both of you epitomize the same arrogance, condescension, and intellectual closed-mindedness.
> 
> You purposely misrepresent my positions, so as to set up a straw man that you can attack. I've already answered your nonsensical charge about "heroes" et al., yet without an iota of proof you continue to put words in my mouth. I'll defend anything that I've written, but there is no need for me to defend what you dishonestly attempt to attribute to me.
> 
> You claim to be a "historian" but obviously not one of U.S. History, and one unable to see perspectives other than your own. (Since *you* were the one who sought to censor me on the thread referenced above due to the fact that I am not an economist, intellectual consistency demands that you should recuse yourself here, since you are not an American History professor. Either that, or apologize - one or the other would be the proper course for a man of character.)
> 
> Your lack of understanding regarding George Mason fails to inhibit you from opining on a topic of which you know little, and illustrates your inability to acknowledge that other viewpoints - factually based, unlike your broadsides - exist. To answer your question from above, _*you painted Mr. Mason as a hypocrite driven by personal and political ambition.*_ That your characterization is wildly inaccurate is apparent to anyone who knows of Mason; my concern is that you once again attempt to distort both history and others' positions in order to make your own unsupportable political points.
> 
> I, nor Mr. Petrik, have ever described the Founders as anything remotely approximating "mythological creatures or demi-gods" or even implied such a thing. In fact, it is *you*, Chouan, that has written of the Founders as some monolithic group of self-seeking economic and political manipulators of the great unwashed. You are consistent in your dishonest tactics - first you distort your opponents' positions, then you attack that fabricated distortion. Since you are so fond of requesting evidence of others (despite frequently holding yourself to a very different standard), can you please illustrate where I have regarded the Founders so monolithically? As one who is _very_ sympathetic to the Antifederalist viewpoint, I necessarily *cannot* hold the beliefs that you ascribe to me. But, please don't let _*that *_get in the way of your intellectual sleight-of-hand&#8230;


I didn't. Again, I challenge you to prove your assertion that I attacked your personal hero, or indeed any of her personal heroes in any way.
Can I further point out that the ad hom stuff "behaving like a jerk" came from _*your*_ side. Can I assume that you believe that only Americans can study or understand American History? And that only American professors of American History can express an opinion?
I did suggest that if you can't bear your heroes to be treated as men rather than heroes, don't read my posts. Everything you write is predicated on their perfection and sainthood.


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> I didn't. Again, I challenge you to prove your assertion that I attacked your personal hero, or indeed any of her personal heroes in any way.
> Can I further point out that the ad hom stuff "behaving like a jerk" came from _*your*_ side. Can I assume that you believe that only Americans can study or understand American History? And that only American professors of American History can express an opinion?
> I did suggest that if you can't bear your heroes to be treated as men rather than heroes, don't read my posts. Everything you write is predicated on their perfection and sainthood.


You continue with the "hero" nonsense, and ignored my illustration of how you attacked Mason. Denial is not refutation; neither is distortion. It is, however, very dishonest and unbecoming.

"My side"? I don't have a side, Chouan. _*You're*_ the tendentious one, who sees things in terms of "sides." I am quite an independent thinker.

That "jerk" remark is becoming increasingly apropos&#8230;

*You* were the one who sought to censor opinions in that prior thread, not me. How soon you've forgotten (more accurately, how expedient of you)! Now you squeal about being able to express opinions on topics in which one is not expert. My, how your opinion has changed! How surprising? So much for your integrity and intellectual honesty&#8230;

"Perfection and sainthood? You really are deceitful and obtuse. I will not continue interacting with someone for whom integrity and intellectual honesty are barren concepts.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Tiger said:


> I will not continue interacting with someone for whom integrity and intellectual honesty are barren concepts.


My conclusion as well.


----------



## Hitch

Tiger said:


> It is funny how many twists and turns this thread has taken, with posters jumping in and dropping off as the topic morphs into something tangential. Whatever one's beliefs, an outsider will never know what we've banged around in this thread, simply by looking at the title...


 True enough . But with all the rhetoric its still plain as daylight the Marines overwhelmingly prefer W.


----------



## Hitch

Another veer off topic, but I'll claim license;

/*"I noticed Ms. Adams was in first class and as I was getting seated, I saw the flight attendant guide the soldier to Ms. Adams' seat. She was no longer in it, but it was pretty clear that she'd given up her seat for him," fellow passenger Jemele Hill, co-host of ESPN2′s "Numbers Never Lie," told ABC News&#8230;*


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

SG_67 said:


> ^ but it still is about that. Just a more in depth analysis with historical context!


I disagree. Respect for the Marines from Barry or Dubya has nothing to do with slavery or imperialism.


----------



## SG_67

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I disagree. Respect for the Marines from Barry or Dubya has nothing to do with slavery or imperialism.


It was meant as a joke!....


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Ok, I think I see the problem, is there a smiley in that last post? If yes, then that is what the box is that I see.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

SG_67 said:


> ^ but it still is about that. Just a more in depth analysis with historical context!


And here, I only see a box as well, no smiley.


----------



## SG_67

Earl of Ormonde said:


> And here, I only see a box as well, no smiley.


I'm going to stop posting from a mobile device as it fails to capture my incredible sense of humor!

The box was meant to be a smiley face.

It is a call to arms....think outside the box!!!


----------



## Balfour

Oh, goodness me.

The Bush-bashers are really out in force in this thread. It is patently obvious that the majority in the military esteemed President Bush.

And he was a Commander-in-Chief who had a sense of duty that transcended spin. He did not seek to make political capital out of his visits to wounded soldiers. His empathy for the heroes of America was etched in his face in the services to commemorate the fallen. He cared about those folks, and cared about defending America (and the West). They got that.

Frankly, rather like Prime Minister John Major, President Bush was unfairly traduced in his time, and history's judgment will be much kinder.

"_I can hear you, I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people ... and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear ALL of us soon._"

God bless President Bush, and God bless the USA.

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...-to-quot-W-quot-thank-you-for-keeping-us-safe

Tiger / Mike: You're bang on the money re. Chouan.

-B.


----------



## Balfour

Do ya miss me yet?


----------



## Balfour

Not adduced as evidence, but very funny:


----------



## tocqueville

Balfour said:


> Do ya miss me yet?


Puke.


----------



## tocqueville

But welcome back, Balfour!


----------



## Chouan

Balfour said:


> Oh, goodness me.
> 
> God bless President Bush, and God bless the USA.


Oh, Goodness me indeed.



Balfour said:


> Tiger / Mike: You're bang on the money re. Chouan.
> 
> -B.


Thank you for changing your comment; I hope that you re-considered it yourself, rather than being directed to do so.
Can I assume that you're also a Founding Fathers hero-worshipper? Just out of interest, given that you agree with the other two who have expressed their admiration for their British heroes, what was it that I wrote that could in any way be construed as an attack on them in general, or on George Mason in particular. Tiger and Petrik appear to be unable to tell me, which I find curious, assuming as I do that they're both people of at least some level of intelligence.


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> Oh, Goodness me indeed.
> 
> Thank you for changing your comment, I hope that you re-considered it yourself, rather than being directed to do so.
> Can I assume that you're also a Founding Fathers hero-worshipper? Just out of interest, given that you agree with the other two who have expressed their admiration for their British heroes, what was it that I wrote that could in any way be construed as an attack on them in general, or on George Mason in particular. Tiger and Petrik appear to be unable to tell me, which I find curious, assuming as I do that they're both people of at least some level of intelligence.


Please keep me out of your dishonest, moronic, opaque, and distasteful posts. Everything you continue to whine about (and distort) has been answered and/or clarified.

Keep me out of your insane little world!


----------



## Balfour

tocqueville said:


> Puke.


Hah!



tocqueville said:


> But welcome back, Balfour!


Always good to see you, tocque. Would love to talk politics with you over a cold one some time.


----------



## tocqueville

Balfour said:


> Hah!
> 
> Always good to see you, tocque. Would love to talk politics with you over a cold one some time.


I'd love that as well.


----------



## Chouan

Tiger said:


> Please keep me out of your dishonest, moronic, opaque, and distasteful posts. Everything you continue to whine about (and distort) has been answered and/or clarified.
> 
> Keep me out of your insane little world!


Balfour included you in his earlier post, but you included yourself when you supported Petrik. None of you have answered, or attempted to answer my question. You've bleated on about me attacking your heroes with not one jot of justification! Petrik starts with the "behaving like a jerk"; you support him. Balfour, in a now edited post, refers to me as odious, and made what he thought was a witty comment about my politics, and you now call me dishonest and moronic. Is this how you address people in person? Or only on forums? Petrik couldn't/wouldn't answer, I won't hold my breath waiting for yours. Insane little world? In what way?
I hope that your name calling, which says a lot more about you than it does about me, and inability to answer what is actually a very simple question, makes you feel very pleased with yourself.


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> Balfour included you in his earlier post, but you included yourself when you supported Petrik. None of you have answered, or attempted to answer my question. You've bleated on about me attacking your heroes with not one jot of justification! Petrik starts with the "behaving like a jerk"; you support him. Balfour, in a now edited post, refers to me as odious, and made what he thought was a witty comment about my politics, and you now call me dishonest and moronic. Is this how you address people in person? Or only on forums? Petrik couldn't/wouldn't answer, I won't hold my breath waiting for yours. Insane little world? In what way?
> I hope that your name calling, which says a lot more about you than it does about me, and inability to answer what is actually a very simple question, makes you feel very pleased with yourself.


You continue with the "hero" nonsense, even though I dispensed with this days ago (as one in sympathy with the Anti-Federalists, I cannot possibly believe what you ascribe to me!). As to this question that you keep referring to, I believe it was post #312 where I answered it. But in truth, I've provided much evidence of my positions and many refutations of yours; you seem to dart chameleon-like from one thing to another, but always refusing to acknowledge my responses. I guess that is what happens when one attempts to defend the indefensible - such as one-sentence summaries of people he knows nothing about!

In fact, I've answered everything you've asked, and quite a bit more. However, you are the one who makes the specious arguments, the accusations without evidence, the bevy of distortions of your opponents' positions, the inscrutable comments, and the same inane, circular remarks that have no basis in fact.

That is why your posts are dishonest, moronic, opaque, and distasteful. The fact that you continue in this manner, without reading my responses, demonstrates an almost unstable quality about your posting.

Either read what I've written and respond to that, or please just leave me out of your insanity. In fact, just leave me out of your insanity...


----------



## Chouan

Tiger said:


> You continue with the "hero" nonsense, even though I dispensed with this days ago (as one in sympathy with the Anti-Federalists, I cannot possibly believe what you ascribe to me!). As to this question that you keep referring to, I believe it was post #312 where I answered it. But in truth, I've provided much evidence of my positions and many refutations of yours; you seem to dart chameleon-like from one thing to another, but always refusing to acknowledge my responses. I guess that is what happens when one attempts to defend the indefensible - such as one-sentence summaries of people he knows nothing about!
> 
> In fact, I've answered everything you've asked, and quite a bit more. However, you are the one who makes the specious arguments, the accusations without evidence, the bevy of distortions of your opponents' positions, the inscrutable comments, and the same inane, circular remarks that have no basis in fact.
> 
> That is why your posts are dishonest, moronic, opaque, and distasteful. The fact that you continue in this manner, without reading my responses, demonstrates an almost unstable quality about your posting.
> 
> Either read what I've written and respond to that, or please just leave me out of your insanity. In fact, just leave me out of your insanity...


All that your post 312 does is make more accusations of me attacking the founding fathers, which I have never done! I have merely stated that they were politicians. Is that an attack? That they pursued self-interest. Is that an attack? Again I ask a simple question, how have I attacked them? If what I've said *is* an attack, that they were men, with the flaws of men, and not paragons, then you do regard them as heroes. But if saying that they were men, with the faults of men, isn't an attack, which is my contention, then could you point out what the attacks are?
The idea of "Great Men", men greater in historical stature than ordinary mortals, ceased to be regarded as serious History some generations ago. The neo-hagiography that some historical personages attracted is regarded as nonsense. Some men achieved great things, as, arguably, the Founding Fathers did, but that doesn't make them anything more than men with the self-interest that all men have. 
My "attack" on George Mason appears to be that I thought his a dubious position on slavery, based on his continued ownership of slaves yet thinking slavery immoral. I would still argue that a man who owns slaves whilst believing slavery to be morally wrong is holding a morally ambivalent position at best.
I really can't see how such a suggestion is an attack. 
Did he own slaves? Yes. Did he think slavery morally wrong? Yes. Did he manumit them? No. Does this mean a moral dubiousness? Yes. 
Did the other Founding Fathers hold positions of political power after independence? Did they have more personal power and influence after independence than before? If either question can be answered with a yes, than it can be reasonably argued that they followed their own personal self-interest. This is not to suggest that they didn't make a positive contribution to the development of America.

In a more direct response to your rather unpleasant personal comments, which appear to give you some satisfaction. I have read and fully understood what you have written. Perhaps your posts haven't adequately explained your position? Perhaps your annoyance at having your views challenged has coloured your response? Some people do find challenges to cherished viewpoints distasteful, and take refuge in describing them as moronic, or dishonest, or opaque. However, that is not necessarily the case.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Chouan said:


> All that your post 312 does is make more accusations of me attacking the founding fathers, which I have never done! I have merely stated that they were politicians. Is that an attack? That they pursued self-interest. Is that an attack? Again I ask a simple question, how have I attacked them? If what I've said *is* an attack, that they were men, with the flaws of men, and not paragons, then you do regard them as heroes. But if saying that they were men, with the faults of men, isn't an attack, which is my contention, then could you point out what the attacks are?
> The idea of "Great Men", men greater in historical stature than ordinary mortals, ceased to be regarded as serious History some generations ago. The neo-hagiography that some historical personages attracted is regarded as nonsense. Some men achieved great things, as, arguably, the Founding Fathers did, but that doesn't make them anything more than men with the self-interest that all men have.
> My "attack" on George Mason appears to be that I thought his a dubious position on slavery, based on his continued ownership of slaves yet thinking slavery immoral. I would still argue that a man who owns slaves whilst believing slavery to be morally wrong is holding a morally ambivalent position at best.
> I really can't see how such a suggestion is an attack.
> Did he own slaves? Yes. Did he think slavery morally wrong? Yes. Did he manumit them? No. Does this mean a moral dubiousness? Yes.
> Did the other Founding Fathers hold positions of political power after independence? Did they have more personal power and influence after independence than before? If either question can be answered with a yes, than it can be reasonably argued that they followed their own personal self-interest. This is not to suggest that they didn't make a positive contribution to the development of America.
> 
> In a more direct response to your rather unpleasant personal comments, which appear to give you some satisfaction. I have read and fully understood what you have written. Perhaps your posts haven't adequately explained your position? Perhaps your annoyance at having your views challenged has coloured your response? Some people do find challenges to cherished viewpoints distasteful, and take refuge in describing them as moronic, or dishonest, or opaque. However, that is not necessarily the case.


+1.

I've been following this thread from the wings. One thing is clear in this thread, as in many others. Anyone, who is not American, who expresses an opinion about American things that is not in line with the American view is accused of being provocative, inflammatory, abusive and attacking. Very odd.


----------



## SG_67

Earl of Ormonde said:


> +1.
> 
> I've been following this thread from the wings. One thing is clear in this thread, as in many others. Anyone, who is not American, who expresses an opinion about American things that is not in line with the American view is accused of being provocative, inflammatory, abusive and attacking. Very odd.


With all due respect, cannot the same be said of any other nation?

Were a bunch of Americans sitting around and discussing the problem associated with Swiss neutrality raise the eyebrows of the Swiss and invite commentary from them?

That said, there is something to be said for civil discussion vs. name calling.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> With all due respect, cannot the same be said of any other nation?
> 
> Were a bunch of Americans sitting around and discussing the problem associated with Swiss neutrality raise the eyebrows of the Swiss and invite commentary from them?
> 
> That said, there is something to be said for civil discussion vs. name calling.


With respect, when non-British members, especially American members, have discussed, or indeed condemned Britain and Britain's actions in the past, there have been no accusations of people being provocative, moronic or inflammatory, no suggestions that only Brits can understand, or discuss, or even have opinions on British History. I think that you'll find that where people have been inaccurate, or have been disagreed with, members have responded with reasoned arguments, and have given their views without abuse, or without sarcastic suggestions to the effect of "are you a professor of British history?", that kind of childish stuff.
Indeed, on this very thread, when an American member condemned the British Empire as wicked, he was argued against, but not abused or insulted.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Chouan said:


> With respect, when non-British members, especially American members, have discussed, or indeed condemned Britain and Britain's actions in the past, there have been no accusations of people being provocative, moronic or inflammatory, no suggestions that only Brits can understand, or discuss, or even have opinions on British History. I think that you'll find that where people have been inaccurate, or have been disagreed with, members have responded with reasoned arguments, and have given their views without abuse, or without sarcastic suggestions to the effect of "are you a professor of British history?", that kind of childish stuff.
> Indeed, on this very thread, when an American member condemned the British Empire as wicked, he was argued against, but not abused or insulted.


EXACTLY!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

SG_67 said:


> With all due respect, cannot the same be said of any other nation?


SG, the evidence in threads of the manner of discussion on this forum does not support that as far as I can see. 
Brits, Paddies & the rest of the Euro family do not go catatonic when an American aims criticism at a Euro country. I truly think that it is very much an American phenomenon. And not just here, but on many American-run forums for all sorts of subjects.


----------



## MaxBuck

Earl of Ormonde said:


> SG, the evidence in threads of the manner of discussion on this forum does not support that as far as I can see. Brits, Paddies & the rest of the Euro family do not go catatonic when an American aims criticism at a Euro country. I truly think that it is very much an American phenomenon. And not just here, but on many American-run forums for all sorts of subjects.


We Yanks are a hypersensitive bunch.

Back to the original topic, I don't think one needs to be a Bush apologist to acknowledge that he was more popular with the military (perhaps especially Marines) than their current commander-in-chief is. A cynic might say that is a result of the fact the Marines are fighting men, and Bush appeared perpetually to be itchin' for a fight, while Obama appears perpetually to be seeking to avoid them at all cost.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

MaxBuck said:


> Back to the original topic, I don't think one needs to be a Bush apologist to acknowledge that he was more popular with the military (perhaps especially Marines) than their current commander-in-chief is. A cynic might say that is a result of the fact the Marines are fighting men, and Bush appeared perpetually to be itchin' for a fight, while Obama appears perpetually to be seeking to avoid them at all cost.


+1. I agree with all of that. Bush was way more of a soldier's man than Obama will ever be.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

MaxBuck said:


> We Yanks are a hypersensitive bunch.


Maybe that's why y'all get along so well with those hypersensitive pesky middle easterners


----------



## SG_67

Earl of Ormonde said:


> SG, the evidence in threads of the manner of discussion on this forum does not support that as far as I can see.
> Brits, Paddies & the rest of the Euro family do not go catatonic when an American aims criticism at a Euro country. I truly think that it is very much an American phenomenon. And not just here, but on many American-run forums for all sorts of subjects.





Chouan said:


> With respect, when non-British members, especially American members, have discussed, or indeed condemned Britain and Britain's actions in the past, there have been no accusations of people being provocative, moronic or inflammatory, no suggestions that only Brits can understand, or discuss, or even have opinions on British History. I think that you'll find that where people have been inaccurate, or have been disagreed with, members have responded with reasoned arguments, and have given their views without abuse, or without sarcastic suggestions to the effect of "are you a professor of British history?", that kind of childish stuff.
> Indeed, on this very thread, when an American member condemned the British Empire as wicked, he was argued against, but not abused or insulted.


Sorry, I should have prefaced this with stating that "this forum not included". I was offering a general description.

I think, in general, all nationalities behave this way to varying degrees. It's the same as when family members quarrel amongst themselves, but if someone from the outside tries to intervene or offer criticism, that person is targeted and the internecine feud is halted, at least temporarily.


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> All that your post 312 does is make more accusations of me attacking the founding fathers, which I have never done! I have merely stated that they were politicians. Is that an attack? That they pursued self-interest. Is that an attack? Again I ask a simple question, how have I attacked them? If what I've said *is* an attack, that they were men, with the flaws of men, and not paragons, then you do regard them as heroes. But if saying that they were men, with the faults of men, isn't an attack, which is my contention, then could you point out what the attacks are?
> The idea of "Great Men", men greater in historical stature than ordinary mortals, ceased to be regarded as serious History some generations ago. The neo-hagiography that some historical personages attracted is regarded as nonsense. Some men achieved great things, as, arguably, the Founding Fathers did, but that doesn't make them anything more than men with the self-interest that all men have.
> My "attack" on George Mason appears to be that I thought his a dubious position on slavery, based on his continued ownership of slaves yet thinking slavery immoral. I would still argue that a man who owns slaves whilst believing slavery to be morally wrong is holding a morally ambivalent position at best.
> I really can't see how such a suggestion is an attack.
> Did he own slaves? Yes. Did he think slavery morally wrong? Yes. Did he manumit them? No. Does this mean a moral dubiousness? Yes.
> Did the other Founding Fathers hold positions of political power after independence? Did they have more personal power and influence after independence than before? If either question can be answered with a yes, than it can be reasonably argued that they followed their own personal self-interest. This is not to suggest that they didn't make a positive contribution to the development of America.
> 
> In a more direct response to your rather unpleasant personal comments, which appear to give you some satisfaction. I have read and fully understood what you have written. Perhaps your posts haven't adequately explained your position? Perhaps your annoyance at having your views challenged has coloured your response? Some people do find challenges to cherished viewpoints distasteful, and take refuge in describing them as moronic, or dishonest, or opaque. However, that is not necessarily the case.


We have gone over this ad nauseum. I will make one more attempt at engaging you, since you continue to ignore what I've written previously.

You write of the American Founders as if they are all driven by greed, political expediency, lust for power, and desire to manipulate the masses. Your criticism of the Founders treats them monolithically, and ignores the political philosophy, personal perspective, integrity, and _noblesse oblige_ of many of the Founders. (Not all, but many.) *I have pointed out that such stereotypes are false, and demonstrated as such. You don't think that such flagrantly false stereotypes are attacks on the Founders' (collective) character? If so, I disagree most vehemently. 
*
You continue with this odd notion of "hero worship&#8230;sainthood&#8230;et al." and it's very disturbing, but more importantly, it is dishonest. I have never stated, or even implied such a thing. For someone who has supposedly read all of my posts, you don't seem to realize this. I've already answered your nonsensical charge about "heroes" et al., yet without an iota of proof you continue to put words in my mouth. *Once again, as one who is very sympathetic to the Anti-Federalist viewpoint, I necessarily cannot hold the beliefs that you ascribe to me! *I will disagree often with Hamilton, Marshall, G. Morris, Wilson, and many others, including Washington and Madison on a variety of points. How can I hold them to "demigod status" and "paragons of perfection" yet so strongly disagree with many of their positions? Maybe others perform a reflexive deification of the Founders, but I don't. *Can we finally put this to bed, or will you continue to disingenuously distort my beliefs?
*
You attacked - the absolute correct word for it - George Mason by portraying him as a hypocritical politician driven by personal and political ambition. *Such one sentence commentary on the man is nonsensical, especially when one considers the totality of Mason's life; your smear/characterization is wildly inaccurate.* Unless you wish me to post pages about the real Mason, and not your infantile caricature, what else do you want from me?

Page after page of your posts in this thread contain accusations, distortions, inaccuracies, and a clear pattern of creating straw men at my (and others') expense. Why would you do this? More importantly, why would you do it repeatedly, and *without* *evidence*, even when I have explained and clarified my beliefs multiple times, *with evidence*? You wrote that, "Perhaps your posts haven't adequately explained your position?" but it is clear from even a cursory review of the thread that you mostly ignore what I've written, in your zeal to cling to your spurious assertions. Can you understand the level of frustration that you engender? You excel, at least in this thread, at making spurious (and specious) arguments, accusations without evidence, a plethora of repetitive distortions of your opponents' positions, and a tendency to ignore inconvenient but expository responses to your posts.

You have totally - but unsurprisingly - distorted my quip about you not being a professor of U.S. History, and thus your opinions lacked validity. *I purposely brought this up because you once wielded it against me! As already written in this thread, Chouan, you were the one who sought to censor my opinions in an "economics" thread from months ago, using that exact rationale - that I wasn't an Economics Professor, and therefore I should refrain from commenting on the topic!* I merely used the same "logic" against you in this thread, to highlight your expedience, hypocrisy, and lack of intellectual honesty.

That last paragraph and the third one above, more than anything point out what has become irrational discourse on your part. Not sure what else I can possibly write, or what it is that you're seeking. *When one has resorted, as I believe you have, to desecrating lucidly expressed thoughts on my part, honest grounds for discussion no longer exist.*


----------



## tocqueville

Earl of Ormonde said:


> +1. I agree with all of that. Bush was way more of a soldier's man than Obama will ever be.


I would agree with that, although it is not necessarily a commendation or a qualification for high office. I for one like Bush more and more as a person, while still regarding his tenure to be an unmitigated disaster. It helps that there are others to blame, people who were the direct authors of Bush's worst decisions and policies.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

SG_67 said:


> I think, in general, all nationalities behave this way to varying degrees. It's the same as when family members quarrel amongst themselves, but if someone from the outside tries to intervene or offer criticism, that person is targeted and the internecine feud is halted, at least temporarily.


Yes, I agree with that.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

tocqueville said:


> I would agree with that, although it is not necessarily a commendation or a qualification for high office. I for one like Bush more and more as a person, while still regarding his tenure to be an unmitigated disaster. It helps that there are others to blame, people who were the direct authors of Bush's worst decisions and policies.


Yea, I agree with all that as well. Bush was no worse than Blair, and Blair shares just as much blame for the WMD debacle. The difference was that it always seemed more obvious that Bush had some real hard nosed warmongers behind the scenes feeding his staff dodgy intel from day one!


----------



## tocqueville

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Yea, I agree with all that as well. Bush was no worse than Blair, and Blair shares just as much blame for the WMD debacle. The difference was that it always seemed more obvious that Bush had some real hard nosed warmongers behind the scenes feeding his staff dodgy intel from day one!


The dodgy intel was always just an excuse; the agenda and supporting dogma preceded and were independent of "evidence."

I found Blair far more convincing in those days, given his vastly superior command of the English language compared to anyone in the Bush administration. Blair gave me some comfort: Well, I thought, this policy can't be completely insane if Blair is on board.

I was mistaken.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

tocqueville said:


> I was mistaken.


Weren't we all!

A reminder that the Left and the Right are as bad and duplicitous as each other.


----------



## Langham

tocqueville said:


> The dodgy intel was always just an excuse; the agenda and supporting dogma preceded and were independent of "evidence."
> 
> I found Blair far more convincing in those days, given his vastly superior command of the English language compared to anyone in the Bush administration. Blair gave me some comfort: Well, I thought, this policy can't be completely insane if Blair is on board.
> 
> I was mistaken.


Blair was a clever man but a double dyed sh1t not above (in fact I suspect revelling in) telling lie after lie. I often find myself thinking about the poor man who (supposedly ) killed himself because of that dodgy dossier.


----------



## Odradek

Langham said:


> Blair was a clever man but a double dyed sh1t not above (in fact I suspect revelling in) telling lie after lie. I often find myself thinking about the poor man who (supposedly ) killed himself because of that dodgy dossier.


Supposedly indeed.


----------



## Odradek

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Weren't we all!
> 
> A reminder that the Left and the Right are as bad and duplicitous as each other.


Bliar is neither left not right. Just evil.


----------



## SG_67

Odradek said:


> Bliar is neither left not right. Just evil.


I'm not taking sides here, but it's interesting how someone is just labeled as Evil with such facility.


----------



## Langham

SG_67 said:


> I'm not taking sides here, but it's interesting how someone is just labeled as Evil with such facility.


He did his reputation no favours by enriching himself so monumentally after leaving office. I feel just an iota of sorrow for him however as he was clearly unfortunate in at least one respect.


----------



## SG_67

Langham said:


> He did his reputation no favours by enriching himself so monumentally after leaving office. I feel just an iota of sorrow for him however as he was clearly unfortunate in at least one respect.


But evil?


----------



## Langham

SG_67 said:


> But evil?


Considering some of the consequences of his government's actions, that could be a correct characterisation.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Odradek said:


> Bliar is neither left not right. Just evil.


Now, you go way too far. Blair as the leader of the Labour Party was a breath of fresh air in the late 90s when he took over from the Tories, and his party did a lot of good for the UK. As with Bush, the WMD affair should not taint his good political career prior to it.


----------



## Langham

Too far???


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> Too far???


Replying with a Tory party poster doesn't really further the argument.....


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> The dodgy intel was always just an excuse; the agenda and supporting dogma preceded and were independent of "evidence."
> 
> I found Blair far more convincing in those days, given his vastly superior command of the English language compared to anyone in the Bush administration. Blair gave me some comfort: Well, I thought, this policy can't be completely insane if Blair is on board.
> 
> I was mistaken.


Quite. A very plausible man, a demagogue who created an impression of decency and honesty whilst being as self-seeking and duplicitous as any politician. I'm inclined to think that he is a Tory who saw a better career path in the Labour Party than in his own Party.


----------



## Chouan

Tiger said:


> We have gone over this ad nauseum. I will make one more attempt at engaging you, since you continue to ignore what I've written previously.
> 
> You write of the American Founders as if they are all driven by greed, political expediency, lust for power, and desire to manipulate the masses. Your criticism of the Founders treats them monolithically, and ignores the political philosophy, personal perspective, integrity, and _noblesse oblige_ of many of the Founders. (Not all, but many.) *I have pointed out that such stereotypes are false, and demonstrated as such. You don't think that such flagrantly false stereotypes are attacks on the Founders' (collective) character? If so, I disagree most vehemently.
> *
> You continue with this odd notion of "hero worship&#8230;sainthood&#8230;et al." and it's very disturbing, but more importantly, it is dishonest. I have never stated, or even implied such a thing. For someone who has supposedly read all of my posts, you don't seem to realize this. I've already answered your nonsensical charge about "heroes" et al., yet without an iota of proof you continue to put words in my mouth. *Once again, as one who is very sympathetic to the Anti-Federalist viewpoint, I necessarily cannot hold the beliefs that you ascribe to me! *I will disagree often with Hamilton, Marshall, G. Morris, Wilson, and many others, including Washington and Madison on a variety of points. How can I hold them to "demigod status" and "paragons of perfection" yet so strongly disagree with many of their positions? Maybe others perform a reflexive deification of the Founders, but I don't. *Can we finally put this to bed, or will you continue to disingenuously distort my beliefs?
> *
> You attacked - the absolute correct word for it - George Mason by portraying him as a hypocritical politician driven by personal and political ambition. *Such one sentence commentary on the man is nonsensical, especially when one considers the totality of Mason's life; your smear/characterization is wildly inaccurate.* Unless you wish me to post pages about the real Mason, and not your infantile caricature, what else do you want from me?
> 
> Page after page of your posts in this thread contain accusations, distortions, inaccuracies, and a clear pattern of creating straw men at my (and others') expense. Why would you do this? More importantly, why would you do it repeatedly, and *without* *evidence*, even when I have explained and clarified my beliefs multiple times, *with evidence*? You wrote that, "Perhaps your posts haven't adequately explained your position?" but it is clear from even a cursory review of the thread that you mostly ignore what I've written, in your zeal to cling to your spurious assertions. Can you understand the level of frustration that you engender? You excel, at least in this thread, at making spurious (and specious) arguments, accusations without evidence, a plethora of repetitive distortions of your opponents' positions, and a tendency to ignore inconvenient but expository responses to your posts.
> 
> You have totally - but unsurprisingly - distorted my quip about you not being a professor of U.S. History, and thus your opinions lacked validity. *I purposely brought this up because you once wielded it against me! As already written in this thread, Chouan, you were the one who sought to censor my opinions in an "economics" thread from months ago, using that exact rationale - that I wasn't an Economics Professor, and therefore I should refrain from commenting on the topic!* I merely used the same "logic" against you in this thread, to highlight your expedience, hypocrisy, and lack of intellectual honesty.
> 
> That last paragraph and the third one above, more than anything point out what has become irrational discourse on your part. Not sure what else I can possibly write, or what it is that you're seeking. *When one has resorted, as I believe you have, to desecrating lucidly expressed thoughts on my part, honest grounds for discussion no longer exist.*


I had thought that, at least, you were responding reasonably, and, when I had more time, I intended replying reasonably. Instead, as I read further, I find that you're still accusing me of irrationality, dishonesty etc. which is unfortunate, as I did, briefly, think that you weren't being personal. However, your personal rancour over a previous thread has clearly got the better of you. You really do need to grow up a bit.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> Quite. A very plausible man, a demagogue who created an impression of decency and honesty whilst being as self-seeking and duplicitous as any politician. I'm inclined to think that he is a Tory who saw a better career path in the Labour Party than in his own Party.


I don't think there is anything to suggest he is or was a Tory. There are plenty of politicians who are mere careerists with little if any conviction or principles, but Blair had in addition that Messianic complex of his. While he did have the clarity of vision to perceive that the 'old' Labour party had got itself into a ridiculous and unelectable state with its adherence to Marxist-Leninist dogma, which he addressed by moving the party well to the right of its former position, that still did not make him a Conservative.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> I don't think there is anything to suggest he is or was a Tory. There are plenty of politicians who are mere careerists with little if any conviction or principles, but Blair had in addition that Messianic complex of his. While he did have the clarity of vision to perceive that the 'old' Labour party had got itself into a ridiculous and unelectable state with its adherence to Marxist-Leninist dogma, which he addressed by moving the party well to the right of its former position, that still did not make him a Conservative.


His ideologue, Mandelson said that "We're all Thatcherites now....". Most of Blair's policies were watered down, slightly, Tory policies. Whether or not one believes Labour in its former guise to have been unelectable, Blair's "New Labour" was merely a more acceptable form of Toryness.
He certainly had a messianic complex. Whether that developed whilst PM, or subsequently, he is certainly one of the more grotesque politicians that we've had in recent years.


----------



## Langham

^ An interesting thing for Mandelson to say, that I had forgotten about. I believe he was once quite a lefty, but clearly his conviction just blew away in the wind. There is a story of him being served mushy peas in a Hartlepool working men's club: 'Ah! Guacamole!'


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> I had thought that, at least, you were responding reasonably, and, when I had more time, I intended replying reasonably. Instead, as I read further, I find that you're still accusing me of irrationality, dishonesty etc. which is unfortunate, as I did, briefly, think that you weren't being personal. However, your personal rancour over a previous thread has clearly got the better of you. You really do need to grow up a bit.


This is classic Chouan!

First, he distorts/misrepresents his opponents' positions. Then he claims that his points are true, and not responded to by the opposition. He appears to want genuine discussion/debate, yet he ignores just about every salient point made by his opponents, and never provides anything evidentiary in support of his positions. Then, when his manipulations, hypocrisies, inaccuracies, and obfuscations are exposed, he claims that none of the preceding has occurred, and pretends to be aggrieved. Finally, when his opponent painstakingly responds - for the umpteenth time - to every one of Chouan's queries/comments/distortions, et al., what does our boy do? He ignores all of it, and assumes the stance of the wounded child.

My previous post dismantles every one of your ludicrous contentions; you act as if nothing preceding your post ever occurred. Chouan, I referred to you as irrational because there is no other word that describes such behavior. I called you dishonest because you are a liar - a blatant one at that.

You are the one who needs to "grow up a bit." More pertinent, you need to embrace honesty, integrity, and humility.


----------



## Hitch

Tiger,,, AKA Captain Obvious.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Hitch said:


> Tiger,,, AKA Captain Obvious.


+1...More like Captain Boring


----------



## Tiger

Earl of Ormonde said:


> +1...More like Captain Boring


Perhaps so; it is tedious having to repeatedly demonstrate the fallacies of Chouan (and the arrogance and nastiness of hypocrites like Earl) and defend oneself against his dishonest tactics.

Earl, what happened to your "olive branch"? For someone who whined about being insulted, you sure don't mind doing it to others. Remember what I wrote about taking the "plank out of your eye"? It still applies to you, doubly so.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

What happened to my olive branch? 

Well, I read back thorugh your last post and saw something I'd missed earlier, all your slurs about me regarding Christianity and Catholics. You are just unable to stick to the subject without constant personal attacks. You thrive on derailing topics via personal attacks. 

Also, your theological knowledge is lacking if you think Christinas and Catholics simply turn the other cheek, we also follow the Old Testament, and Jesus wasn't all about peace, SHOUTING & FORCE are justified on occasion. 

So you know where you can SHOVE that olive branch!! :devil:

As for insulting, you keep on doing it, you did it last time round thoughout the whole thread and now you're doing it again. 

I'm now doing it for the first time. You KNOW you were well out of order. Well, the gloves are off! 

Plus you just can't answer a straight question from anyone. You just twist everything around and then reply with so many inaccuracies and assumptions that no one has the energy to answer all your faults and insults. 

You write far too much and most if it is irrelevant and incorrect.

I'm starting to think you just love arguing with people. You're just an argumentative moron, probably with no friends, a boring job, no life and nothing achieved (remember that Earl of Moron....?) :devil:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Tiger said:


> This is classic Chouan!
> 
> First, he distorts/misrepresents his opponents' positions. Then he claims that his points are true, and not responded to by the opposition. He appears to want genuine discussion/debate, yet he ignores just about every salient point made by his opponents, and never provides anything evidentiary in support of his positions. Then, when his manipulations, hypocrisies, inaccuracies, and obfuscations are exposed, he claims that none of the preceding has occurred, and pretends to be aggrieved. Finally, when his opponent painstakingly responds - for the umpteenth time - to every one of Chouan's queries/comments/distortions, et al., what does our boy do? He ignores all of it, and assumes the stance of the wounded child.
> 
> My previous post dismantles every one of your ludicrous contentions; you act as if nothing preceding your post ever occurred. Chouan, I referred to you as irrational because there is no other word that describes such behavior. I called you dishonest because you are a liar - a blatant one at that.
> 
> You are the one who needs to "grow up a bit." More pertinent, you need to embrace honesty, integrity, and humility.


This is classic Tiger!

Tiger, seems to me it's a case of projection with you.

That glasshouse you live in can't have a single intact pane at this stage :devil:


----------



## Tiger

Earl of Ormonde said:


> This is classic Tiger!
> 
> Tiger, seems to me it's a case of projection with you.
> 
> That glasshouse you live in can't have a single intact pane at this stage :devil:


In fact, the opposite is true. No wonder you and Chouan argue together in lockstep...


----------



## Tiger

Earl of Ormonde said:


> What happened to my olive branch? Well, I read back thorugh your last post and saw something I'd missed earlier, all your slurs about me regarding Christianity and Catholics. You are just unable to stick to the subject without constant personal attacks. You thrive on derailing topics via personal attacks.
> 
> Also, your theological knowledge is lacking if you think Christinas and Catholics simply turn the other cheek, we also follow the Old Testament, and Jesus wasn't all about peace, SHOUTING & FORCE are justified on occasion.
> 
> So you know where you can SHOVE that olive branch!! :devil:
> 
> As for insulting, you keep on doing it, you did it last time round thoughout the whole thread and now you're doing it again. I'm now doing it for the first time. You KNOW you were well out of order. Well, the gloves are off!
> 
> Plus you just can't answer a straight question from anyone. You just twist everything around and then reply with so many inaccuracies and assumptions that no one has the energy to answer all your faults and insults. You write far too much and most if it is irrelevant and incorrect.
> 
> I'm starting to think you just love arguing with people. You're just an argumentative moron, probably with no friends, a boring job, no life and nothing achieved (remember that Earl of Moron....?) :devil:


You are a liar, much like your dishonest friend Chouan. I have never slurred Catholics or Christianity (I am a Christian).

I have painstakingly "stuck to the topic" - it is the charlatans such as you and Chouan who are all over the map and partake in deceitful, distortion-filled discourse, *forcing those of us too stubborn to ignore you to offer spirited defenses against your sophistry*.

If I need a lesson in theology, I won't turn to an inept phony like you. My "plank" comment was an obvious reference to Matthew 7:3-5, which deals with hypocrisy (something you should have your doctorate in by now), not "turning the other cheek." *Perhaps you should spend less time cloaking yourself in the trappings of religion and actually read the New Testament. It may help you to avoid the public embarrassment and ignorance on display in your post*.

You accuse me of the very things that you and Chouan specialize in - distortions, inaccuracies, insults, et al. - two frauds devoid of integrity.

Actually, I hate arguments. *But I loathe dishonesty, distortion, and arrogance far more, so I took the time to engage you and your acolyte* (or is it the other way around?). In retrospect, I should have refrained from casting pearls before swine&#8230;

"You're just an argumentative moron, probably with no friends, a boring job, no life and nothing achieved&#8230;" - as sophomoric, inaccurate, and vicious a comment as I've read on AAAC. But, since you're so certain of this, maybe I'll begin to emulate you. I'll take classes in how _*not* _to write coherent English, the art of deception, and showing disdain to others. *When I'm nearly at the desired Earl-like stage, perhaps I'll find employment prancing around pretending to be a Christian without actually knowing anything about the faith itself*. Like you, Earl, I can personify Matthew 23:27-28. Now _that's_ an achievement!


----------



## Chouan

I would suggest that, rather than restrain yourself and internalise your angst you should tell people how you *really* feel about them.....


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> I would suggest that, rather than restrain yourself and internalise your angst you should tell people how you *really* feel about them.....


Merely responding in-kind to the remarks of others. Seems like some people confuse defense with offense...


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Chouan said:


> I would suggest that, rather than restrain yourself and internalise your angst you should tell people how you *really* feel about them.....


+1 But do you know what, I gave up reading his long, boring, self-deceiving rants days ago.
That's why I missed the Christian/Catholic slur the other day. It only caught my eye this morning when scrolling down through the thread to read the most recent entries on the World Cup.
And isn't it odd, how he hates when people don't answer his questions but is even more guilty of it himself.


----------



## Tiger

Earl of Ormonde said:


> +1 But do you know what, I gave up reading his long, boring, self-deceiving rants days ago. That's why I missed the Christian/Catholic slur the other day. It only caught my eye this morning when scrolling down through the thread to read the most recent entries on the World Cup. And isn't it odd, how he hates when people don't answer his questions but is even more guilty of it himself.


Unwittingly, Earl has proved much of what I've been writing!

1) He doesn't read the posts of others (and thus cannot possible engage in honest conversation, as proven by his posts).
2) There was no slur against Christianity (stop perpetuating such scurrilous garbage!); another lie
3) I have answered every damn inquiry/comment/challenge offered up by you and others. Anyone reading these threads knows this to be true - and that you are being dishonest again.
4) As mentioned in 1), you state that you don't read what others write. This is proof that you are the one who "doesn't answer questions" and are ipso facto incapable of judging my responses as inadequate, since you admit to not reading them! Case closed on your hypocrisy and dishonesty!

Have to love the fact that Chouan criticizes me for being direct with the defrocked Earl, but completely ignores Earl's psychotic rant against me. More grist for the mill...


----------



## Chouan

Tiger said:


> Merely responding in-kind to the remarks of others. Seems like some people confuse defense with offense...


And some people really don't get sarcasm.


----------



## Chouan

Tiger said:


> Unwittingly, Earl has proved much of what I've been writing!
> 
> 1) He doesn't read the posts of others (and thus cannot possible engage in honest conversation, as proven by his posts).
> 2) There was no slur against Christianity (stop perpetuating such scurrilous garbage!); another lie
> 3) I have answered every damn inquiry/comment/challenge offered up by you and others. Anyone reading these threads knows this to be true - and that you are being dishonest again.
> 4) As mentioned in 1), you state that you don't read what others write. This is proof that you are the one who "doesn't answer questions" and are ipso facto incapable of judging my responses as inadequate, since you admit to not reading them! Case closed on your hypocrisy and dishonesty!
> 
> Have to love the fact that Chouan criticizes me for being direct with the defrocked Earl, but completely ignores Earl's psychotic rant against me. More grist for the mill...


Interesting that you assumed that I was criticising *you* in particular. Grist for the mill? More resentment and rancour stored up for the future, ready, I assume, to use again next time your views are challenged.


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> And some people really don't get sarcasm.


I understood precisely what you wrote. I simply used it as a vehicle to add a (necessary) comment...


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> Interesting that you assumed that I was criticising *you* in particular. Grist for the mill? More resentment and rancour stored up for the future, ready, I assume, to use again next time your views are challenged.


You made a comment clearly directed at me, in response to what I wrote. How could I not see it that way? Are you pretending that your remark wasn't aimed at me? Please...

Every honest "challenge" to my views has been answered. Every dishonest manipulation/distortion of my views and every "straw man" attack have been answered (and refuted) as well. Abundant evidence exists to prove this; there is zero evidence to the contrary.

Let me know if you believe/discover otherwise. I'm sure at this point I can simply cite a post where I can demonstrate that my assertion above is true.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Wow, I'm loving this ignore function. I've also turned off the private messaging function. I'm a little bit narked at getting PM's warning me about people & trying to conduct behind the scenes discussions.

If you want to tell me something, tell me here!


----------



## Tiger

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Wow, I'm loving this ignore function. I've also turned off the private messaging function. I'm a little bit narked at getting PM's warning me about people & trying to conduct behind the scenes discussions.
> 
> If you want to tell me something, tell me here!


As mentioned in another thread:

For informational purposes, the post above has nothing to do with me. I'm disgusted at having to deal with such duplicitous people on a public forum; there's no chance that I would private message such people!


----------



## Mike Petrik

Earl of Ormonde said:


> +1 But do you know what, I gave up reading his long, boring, self-deceiving rants days ago.
> That's why I missed the Christian/Catholic slur the other day. It only caught my eye this morning when scrolling down through the thread to read the most recent entries on the World Cup.
> And isn't it odd, how he hates when people don't answer his questions but is even more guilty of it himself.


Earl, can you kindly point me to Tiger's Christian/Catholic slur? I'm afraid I missed it too. Thanks in advance, and my apologies for narking you by initially making this request via private message.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Come on, Earl. Can you kindly help me out here?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Yea, sure, I've been on a security job since Thursday evening, got home at 0500 this morning. I've got some down time now till 2000 when we (8 man team) go out on a security & firewatch patrol in a forest until 0200, protecting it & its human and animal residents from a nearby music festival & also protecting the festivalgoers, mostly men under 40, from themselves and the alcohol fueled stupid ideas that they so often get when Professor Brewski takes over. Like scaling a 9 foot fence and stumbling around in a pitch black very dry forest with lit cigarettes and so on. Some of them in their idiocy even think, "oh wouldn't it be cosy to start a nice little campfire" 

A photo just for fun - On a forest patrol in about 2009.









-------------------

Okay, lets have a look, his first slur against me using religion as his weapon was on page 4 of the World Cup thread:
This was the very FIRST thing he wrote to me in his first EVER response to me on this forum, absolutely nothing to do with the subject simply a personal attack to cause hurt & provoke a response. I can't give you the post number, as I now have him on ignore and his post numbers are thus all shown as #0

_"Why Earl, how gentle, thoughtful, and enlightening of you? How do you say "Christian kindness" in Church Latin?"

_The next one was on page 6 of the same thread, lost amongst a whole page of sports related opinion :

_"When I point out the hypocrisy of a person draping themselves in the language and practices of the Catholic Church yet displaying decidedly un-Christian attitudes, I become the bad guy. Was it too personal? - perhaps. However, if one is going to tread the path that you did Earl, and then talk about "heat in the kitchen," you damn well better be prepared for some "uncomfortable temperature" heading your way."

_I will not discuss this further with anyone. I want nothing more to do with him.

I'm going off now to get my kit ready for this evening's patrol, and then a couple of hours shut eye....hopefully!


----------



## Mike Petrik

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Yea, sure, I've been on a security job since Thursday evening, got home at 0500 this morning. I've got some down time now till 2000 when we (8 man team) go out on a security & firewatch patrol in a forest until 0200, protecting it & its human and animal residents from a nearby music festival & also protecting the festivalgoers, mostly men under 40, from themselves and the alcohol fueled stupid ideas that they so often get when Professor Brewski takes over. Like scaling a 9 foot fence and stumbling around in a pitch black very dry forest with lit cigarettes and so on. Some of them in their idiocy even think, "oh wouldn't it be cosy to start a nice little campfire"
> 
> -------------------
> 
> Okay, lets have a look, his first slur against me using religion as his weapon was on page 4 of the World Cup thread:
> This was the very FIRST thing he wrote to me in his first EVER response to me on this forum, absolutely nothing to do with the subject simply a personal attack to cause hurt & provoke a response. I can't give you the post number, as I now have him on ignore and his post numbers are thus all shown as #0
> 
> _"Why Earl, how gentle, thoughtful, and enlightening of you? How do you say "Christian kindness" in Church Latin?"
> 
> _The next one was on page 6 of the same thread, lost amongst a whole page of sports related opinion :
> 
> _"When I point out the hypocrisy of a person draping themselves in the language and practices of the Catholic Church yet displaying decidedly un-Christian attitudes, I become the bad guy. Was it too personal? - perhaps. However, if one is going to tread the path that you did Earl, and then talk about "heat in the kitchen," you damn well better be prepared for some "uncomfortable temperature" heading your way."
> 
> _I will not discuss this further with anyone. I want nothing more to do with him.
> 
> I'm going off now to get my kit ready for this evening's patrol, and then a couple of hours shut eye....hopefully!


Thanks, Earl. In my estimation these statements are criticisms directed toward you, grounded in his perception of your hypocrisy. They cannot fairly be considered slurs against either Christianity in general or Catholicism in particular. Frankly, that accusation was unfair and explains his sharp rebuke.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Mike Petrik said:


> Thanks, Earl. In my estimation these statements are criticisms directed toward you, grounded in his perception of your hypocrisy. They cannot fairly be considered slurs against either Christianity in general or Catholicism in particular. Frankly, that accusation was unfair and explains his sharp rebuke.


I agree, my wording was incorrect in an attempt to be brief, too brief it would seem. I meant slurs against me a Christian and a Catholic, using religion as the weapon, not against the religions per se. Apologies to you Mike for the misunderstanding due to the clumsiness of my writing.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I agree, my wording was incorrect in an attempt to be brief, too brief it would seem. I meant slurs against me a Christian and a Catholic, using religion as the weapon, not against the religions per se. Apologies to you Mike for the misunderstanding due to the clumsiness of my writing.


Fair enough, Earl. God knows that I have written clumsily and in haste. That said, Tiger understandably took umbrage at having been accused of saying something he plainly did not say. He reacted too sharply in my view, but no doubt he was sensitive given your support of another member who habitually accuses others of saying things they did not say.


----------



## Tiger

Mike Petrik said:


> Fair enough, Earl. God knows that I have written clumsily and in haste. That said, Tiger understandably took umbrage at having been accused of saying something he plainly did not say. He reacted too sharply in my view, but no doubt he was sensitive given your support of another member who habitually accuses others of saying things they did not say.


A concise and accurate summary of what occurred -thank you, Mike, for determining the truth.

I know an apology won't be forthcoming from Earl, nor do I care. It is my hope, however, that honesty and accuracy will be guideposts for dialogue on the Interchange in the future. I've spent way too much time being painstakingly sure to support what I write, and to support my refutation of others. There are some whose recklessness in these matters make honest dialogue impossible - it desecrates the language and atrophies the soul, if one cares deeply enough about the topics under discussion and the manner in which they're discussed.

I used to think it was worth the effort; I no longer do. Some people are best left to argue with themselves...


----------



## Balfour

Mike Petrik said:


> Fair enough, Earl. God knows that I have written clumsily and in haste. That said, Tiger understandably took umbrage at having been accused of saying something he plainly did not say. He reacted too sharply in my view, but *no doubt he was sensitive given your support of another member who habitually accuses others of saying things they did not say*.


I don't intend to wade into the fracas between Ormonde (who, whatever he may think of me, I consider to be a good egg) and Tiger, but thanks for clearing this up Mike (especially in view of the truth of the text to which I have given emphasis).


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Thanks Balfour, but I harbour no bad thoughts about you.

Recently though, I really don't have the energy for the longwinded wars of words that go on here, eventhough I sometimes get into them I try to aovid them. I'm just so tired, I've been on lots of trips this year on various safety and security jobs for the Swedish govt e.g. Finland, Estonia, the opposite end of Sweden from where I live. A six hour patrol coming up in 2 hours, I'm just knackered!


----------



## Balfour

Good to hear, and thanks! You do sound busy. 

Have you moved, incidentally?  I thought you were north of Stockholm (from where I recently returned from a splendid holiday).


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

No, I'm way out in the middle of the country where I've always been, a long way away from everything 

Where were you exactly?


----------



## Balfour

Ah, it may just be the change in location from the _gaeilge(*) _version! Great country - always enjoy my visits._

(*) _ Not sure if used correctly.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Yea, I think it must be that, someone else noticed the change as well, but it was only a change in language not real location. 

And gaeilge (gayl-guh) is correct. Well done!

Slán go foill! (See ya later!)


----------



## Balfour

Missed your earlier question, sorry - just in the City this time visiting friends; keep meaning to explore the archipelago some more. SW coast near Gothenburg is also a favourite.

Slán go foill indeed!


----------

