^ Like I said, you have to change arguments to essentially say that since the platform is different, it's a different party.

That's fine.

By the same token, Democrats aren't the party of Jackson anymore, either.

For that matter, we aren't the party of LBJ or Clinton, either.

So confusing, it's almost as much of a chameleon as the Republican party in that way.

Anyways, the people who actually write the history books disagree with you about who founded the Democratic party, just thought you should know.

Oh, and I'm disappointed that comment hasn't gotten 15 upvotes, I thought I was particularly inspired when I wrote that.

^Why would Tim Kaine (or anyone from the Dem Party) want to claim Andrew Jackson as their founder? He was racist, hated Native Americans, was the cause of the Trail of Tears, and ignored the balance of power.

The truth is he was the first Democrat President. He was the original, technical founder of the party. It's simple. There's a loose relationship between the Dem/Repub parties of today and the old Democratic Republican Party of yesteryear.

And there is a huge "break in the identity of the party between Jefferson's party" and the other big government, interventionist presidents you mentioned above (FDR, LBJ, Clinton, Obama). Jefferson believed the government that governs best is the government that governs least. Thomas Jefferson extended Washington's ideas in his March 4, 1801 inaugural address: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." (cited) None of the recent presidents in either party have been very Jeffersonian. Sorry.

Oh, and my ad hominem attacks, NetRunner? Sorry, pigfucker.

^ Now you're just changing arguments, and tossing in ad hominem because you know you're wrong.

I buy the argument that both parties can claim, in some sense, to be the party founded by Jefferson.

I buy the argument that neither party can claim to be built on the platform of Jefferson's Democratic-Republican party.

I reject the argument that there is a clear break in the identity of the party between Jefferson's party, Jackson's party, FDR's party, LBJ's party, Clinton's party, and Obama's party, despite having different ideals and priorities dominating them through each turn of history.

I think the most neutral phrasing I've seen anyone give to this is to say the Democratic party is "A political party that arose in the 1820s from a split in the Democratic-Republican party", a claim that cannot be made by any other extant party.

Jackson himself ran as a Democratic-Republican, and only after he was in the White House did the party change its name to being just the Democratic party.

Oh, and if all of the above is revisionism, please contact all these sources:

http://www.answers.com/topic/democratic-party

And have them call Tim Kaine and tell him to take his revisionist history off the party's official webpage:

http://www.democrats.org/a/party/history.html

Thank you, very interesting.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
^ Oh, you want facts, not mild snark. This article has a pretty good chart of Science spending over the last 50-ish years.

In short, what Tyson said is true, to an extent. Medical/Biological research funding went way up, but Bush always reminded people that it was to protect us from biological weapons, and I wouldn't be surprised if the money did come with strings attached that it be used for projects that would help on that front.

NASA funding went up slightly, but it came with the requirement that about a third of the total budget go to working on a manned mission to Mars, and/or nuclear rocketry.

Earth and environmental science, whose budget was already tiny, got cut by about a third, presumably because he didn't want it wasted on global warming research.

I assume it's a similar story with energy research which he all but eliminated for most of his tenure as President.

General funding for science also went up. I've heard no bad stories about that, so I'll just say good for Bush on that count.

The chart also puts paid to DeGrasse's claim that Republican Presidents generally fund science more than Democratic ones do. Kennedy/LBJ spiked it up, Nixon cut it back slightly, Carter boosted it up, Reagan cut it back. The Bushes and Clinton were backwards from the historic trend, but Clinton was trying to balance the budget, and Bush thought he was on a mission from God. Both were odd examples of their party.

Obama will likely bump these numbers to new highs, though I imagine the mix will be wildly different than under Bush.

^ Oh, you want facts, not mild snark. This article has a pretty good chart of Science spending over the last 50-ish years.

In short, what Tyson said is true, to an extent. Medical/Biological research funding went way up, but Bush always reminded people that it was to protect us from biological weapons, and I wouldn't be surprised if the money did come with strings attached that it be used for projects that would help on that front.

NASA funding went up slightly, but it came with the requirement that about a third of the total budget go to working on a manned mission to Mars, and/or nuclear rocketry.

Earth and environmental science, whose budget was already tiny, got cut by about a third, presumably because he didn't want it wasted on global warming research.

I assume it's a similar story with energy research which he all but eliminated for most of his tenure as President.

General funding for science also went up. I've heard no bad stories about that, so I'll just say good for Bush on that count.

The chart also puts paid to DeGrasse's claim that Republican Presidents generally fund science more than Democratic ones do. Kennedy/LBJ spiked it up, Nixon cut it back slightly, Carter boosted it up, Reagan cut it back. The Bushes and Clinton were backwards from the historic trend, but Clinton was trying to balance the budget, and Bush thought he was on a mission from God. Both were odd examples of their party.

Obama will likely bump these numbers to new highs, though I imagine the mix will be wildly different than under Bush.

I FEEL LIKE YELLING HERE, APOLOGIES TO ALL WITH SENSITIVE EARDRUMS.

If the free market is such a great dynamo of the economy over fiscal expenditure and government explain to me why we had a Wall street bailout?

BECAUSE GOVERNMENT FORCED BANKS TO GIVE HOUSES TO POOR PEOPLE WHO COULDN'T AFFORD THEM IN THE NAME OF "FAIRNESS". TAXOCRATS BUY THE ALLEGIANCE OF "THE POOR" WITH TAX DOLLARS. BROTHER, CAN YOU SPARE A VICTIM?

ME AGAINST ALL BAILOUTS. STILL AM. FAILED CONSERVATIVE LIKE BUSH STILL NOT EQUAL SOCIALIST IDEOLOGUE WHO NOW SEEK TRILLION DOLLARS ON A TARGET GIFT CARD. IT'S SCUM POLITICIANS' WET DREAM, ALL MONEY/NO ACCOUNTABILITY.

What are you going to say now? The banking industry is not deregulated enough? The fed wasn't lax enough? The SEC shouldn't exist so more money could be rolled and rolled over in toxic packages? socialism? credit controls were not lax enough? What about regressive credit card debt? diminishing middle class? housing market bubble? run away government spending? defense spending? loss of capital infrastructure? lack of progressive tax structures? loosening of tax codes to corporate entities? run away trade deficit? increased federal debt? billions per month in Iraq that don't go to troops? spending on the drug war? spending on abstinence programs that don't work?

IT CALLED SPENDING MORE THAN YOU MAKE. YOU/ME DO IT AND GO BROKE OR TO JAIL. GOVERNMENT DO IT AND GET AWAY WITH IT...THAT WHY BIG GOVERNMENT SUCKS.

ME AGAINST 90% OF FEDERAL GOVT. TOO BIG, TOO POWERFUL. ALL UNCONSTITUTIONAL NONSENSE MUST GO.

Don't blame the previous 8 years of economic fumbling on a incoming president. At least he is trying to formulate a plan to avert disaster, unfortunately the free market doesn't care about the welfare of the economy as a whole, there is no invisible hand to pick up the American economy, notice the large manufacturing sector that has moved almost all production overseas.

FISCAL IRRESPONSIBILITY OF TAXOCRATS GOES ALL WAY BACK TO CARTER; BEFORE HIM, FAILED WELFARE SOCIETIES OF FDR AND LBJ. KENNEDY LAST LIBERAL TO DEMAND LOW TAXES FOR PROSPERITY.

They don't care about the American economy, they care about their own profits that is free market economics, fiscal spending and government stimulus is needed now to create a net injection into the economy.

HYPERINFLATION IS WHAT OBAMA WILL BRING.

The market plunged because Obama didn't promise any kind of net government bailout and you are here crying about socialism and new deals.

What do you think that says.

IT SAYS THERE NOTHING SO BAD ON OWN GOVERNMENT CAN'T MAKE WORSE. IF OBAMA WANT QUICK RECOVERY, HE SLASH TAXES FURTHER AND PROMISE NOT INTERFERE. HE INTEND GROW THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT VIA GAMMA RADIATION.

POLITICIANS = INSECURE CLOWNS WITH TERRIBLE EGOS. THEY WANT BE HEROES BY PRETENDING TO STOP CRISES THEY CREATED IN 1ST PLACE! THEY 'TAKE ACTION' EVEN WHEN ACTION MAKE WORSE.

HULK SMASH.

Ahh Right Wing historical revisionism.

Never looking at Reagen's record expenditure on nuclear armament, star wars, iran contra, trickle down economics and so much more. How was that as a economic stimulus?

Let's not forget the constant axiom held that free markets would allows a growing market, well insider trading of sub prime mortgages was about as close to a free market as you got, yet look how that panned out. The SEC and Credit approves all rolled over to allow big business to fuck up even more, which was then rescued by government bailout. Free market engineering allowed Enron to jack California for money over power, because somehow Alan Greenspan thought everyone would simply self regulate themselves.

What about defense spending? privatization of military contracts and logistics was supposed to save the government money instead it spends even more now on logistics and upkeep routinely private firms would blow up equipment and charge ungodly rates to the government.

Right wing nut economics has always been about privatizing profits while socializing the costs. Relying solely on outdated criticisms on FDR and LBJ. What happened with Bush you guys? What was that about small government?

No you can't afford tax cuts when you have run away deficit and a crumbling infrastructure. The same ones built through government expenditure.

you do realize that this same financial bullshit was going on back then, only people actually got away instead of being caught?

LBJ and FDR didn't invent theiving market manipulation or insider trading or all the other fun stuff that people do to get over on the rest of the world.

you actually blame transparent plans, for things that happened because of stuff no one was supposed to ever know about? aka secret shit?

back to your excuse board, qm = billo.

Until very recently, Democrats were the sole party of Big Government. We're STILL paying for FDR's disastrous "New Deal" and LBJ's failed "Great Society" war on poverty.

If the numbnuts in DC wanted to fix the current problems which they ultimately caused, they'll do...nothing; nothing except get out of the way and shut their royal traps. We all know THAT will never happen, because the egos of these 'leaders' are insatiable and they have to play Santa Claus to someone.

The most insane phrase I've heard beyond the bailouts is this: "tax cuts we can't afford." Such despicable arrogance by parasites. It's big, useless government no one can afford.

There has been much talk lately of America's Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which set off the protectionist dominoes in 1930. It is usually invoked by free traders to make the wrong point. The relevant message of Smoot-Hawley is that America was then the big exporter, playing the China role. By resorting to tariffs, it set off retaliation, and was the biggest victim of its own folly.

Who among free marketers cheerleads this government interference known as Smoot-Hawley, which was a major factor in raising other nations' retaliatory tariffs and bringing about the Great Depression.

Big Government sucks. Anything it does past the minimum of military defense and protection of citizens' rights is bound to screw up the system.

The lesson was not learned when FDR's policies prolonged the Great Depression by almost 10 years. It wasn't learned from LBJ's Great Society and we're STILL paying for both of these boondoggles today. The price tag of LBJ's folly alone is 3 trillion.

Senator Obama's plans aren't going to help anyone except his cronies (as opposed to Bush's).

Instead of revolting, the states are complicit in this next Great Train Robbery of the taxpayers.

Revolution is always possible in the United States, only it's not going to be for more socialism but less.

>> ^rougy:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Holy smokes? FIFTEEN? When it gets up to 3000 killed by pig jihadists, ring the bell.
Eight years to undo Bush's "damage"? We're still not over FDR, LBJ and Carter's.


You're defending injustice with injustice, do you not see how that is doomed to failure and a neverending spiral of the same shit?

You don't care that a few innocents get held imprisoned without legal course. Fuck em, they killed our people, a few innocent lives destroyed is acceptable loss.

So the government declares war on them, but they hide behind innocent peaceful people, knitting themselves deep into the grain. That's their shield, innocent people. And then, when you kill innocent people to get to them, they say, "Look what they did to your mother, will you let her die in vain?" And the children of those peaceful people grow up to become terrorists who bomb a large tower in the USA.

So the government declares war on them, but they hide behind innocent peaceful people, knitting themselves deep into the grain. That's their shield, innocent people. And then, when you kill innocent people to get to them, they say, "Look what they did to your mother, will you let her die in vain?" And the children of those peaceful people grow up to become terrorists who bomb a large tower in the USA.

So the government declares war on them...............

--

Unfortunately you know this story, because even despite your supreme ignorance you're an intelligent person. So that's you, that's your life, that's your perogative.

You're a terrorist in your own right.

>> ^quantumushroom:
"Among the approximately two dozen Uyghur detainees in Guantanamo, the Washington Post reported on August 25, 2005, that fifteen had been determined not to have been "enemy combatants." (Source)
Holy smokes? FIFTEEN? When it gets up to 3000 killed by pig jihadists, ring the bell.
Eight years to undo Bush's "damage"? We're still not over FDR, LBJ and Carter's.

So you admit that Obama should serve 2 terms, huh? Good man.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Holy smokes? FIFTEEN? When it gets up to 3000 killed by pig jihadists, ring the bell.
Eight years to undo Bush's "damage"? We're still not over FDR, LBJ and Carter's.


You just don't get it.

You have no concept of justice.

You...people like you...have brought us to where we are today.

"Among the approximately two dozen Uyghur detainees in Guantanamo, the Washington Post reported on August 25, 2005, that fifteen had been determined not to have been "enemy combatants." (Source)

Holy smokes? FIFTEEN? When it gets up to 3000 killed by pig jihadists, ring the bell.

Eight years to undo Bush's "damage"? We're still not over FDR, LBJ and Carter's.

Carter's presidency has nothing to do with statements made here.

When the messenger has done more harm than good, he deserves to be called out. Also, Carter violated the unwritten code that ex-presidents do not speak against sitting presidents. Make no mistake, Carter was/is the greater of two evils between Bush and himself.

Despite the legacy of his presidency he has gone on to do excellent work in humanitarian projects all over the world.

That doesn't excuse the damage Carter did any more than Clinton's painting a house erases his failure to defend our missile tech from Chinese spies.

Claiming every Democrat has been wrong on every statement or decision they've ever made makes you look terribly stupid.

Then it's a good thing YOU said it and not me.

FDR's New Deal - expensive unconstitutional failure, prolonged the Depression, still paying for it today

LBJ's Great Society/War on Poverty - expensive unconstitutional failure, still paying for it today

Obama Tax Raising Socialism- expensive unconstitutional failure-in-waiting,; it don't take a rocket surgeon to predict the coming belly flop from his Highness.

Let me make an example using Bush Jr. He's easily the worst president of my lifetime and quite possibly the worst ever, but I can still say he's done great things with PEPFAR.

Well, that's your opinion about Bush, based on whatever criteria you're using. I have plenty of harsh words for the Bush Presidency but disagree he's the worst. As for our lifetimes, they're still going along. Don't cash in your survey just yet!


If we had footage of Clinton stating "two and two is four", I get the feeling you'd try to pretend it wasn't. You'd probably work some stupid pun like "Shill Clinton" in there, too.

"Shill Clinton" isn't as good as Shrillary but WTF, he's an alleged rapist as well as abuser of women. He and his wife's crime syndicate needs to disappear.

Grow up already.

The adult view is that torture is sometimes necessary. The Gitmo scum aren't enemy soldiers or combatants fighting under an organized army's flag, which means no protection for them under the Geneva Conventions.

Why does the side with no morality in their daily conduct suddenly want the moral high ground on the issue of torture?