» Bush — Before And Now Dvorak Uncensored: General interest observations and true web-log.

# 1 Angel H. Wong said, on July 17th, 2008 at 5:19 pm

Whoever did this chart should be executed for treason because the world is always a better place under a Republican rule and that chart only shows nothing but tree-hugging, liberal lies.

# 2 Jobie said, on July 17th, 2008 at 5:24 pm

Where in the hell is college tuition $5k/year?

# 3 doug said, on July 17th, 2008 at 5:40 pm

Uncle Dave, I have had it up to HERE with you and your fact-based agenda! Everyone knows you can prove anything with facts, even if it is only remotely true.

# 4 Paddy-O said, on July 17th, 2008 at 5:45 pm

39.2% Viewed

America Favorably

Thank God! Now maybe the whole world won’t be trying to sneak into this country illegally.

# 5 Steve S said, on July 17th, 2008 at 5:49 pm

Yes so life in America was much better in 2001 before GWB was president. Who’s to say that America wouldn’t have started its slide into the crapper if GWB had not been elected president.
Could just be a coincidence ;-P

# 6 natefrog said, on July 17th, 2008 at 5:59 pm

#2;

Are you saying that’s high or low? Seems low to me.

# 7 Sea Lawyer said, on July 17th, 2008 at 5:59 pm

This kind of chart should appeal to the simpletons at least. There are a lot more variables involved with these numbers (and I question the accuracy of some of them) than just who sits in the White House.

# 8 chuck said, on July 17th, 2008 at 6:00 pm

Good news: many Iraqi and Afghan citizens are no longer living in poverty.

Thousands of them, who struggled to get by under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein or the Taliban, are now dead.

# 9 natefrog said, on July 17th, 2008 at 6:00 pm

#7;

Please elaborate if you have the “variables.”

# 10 ECA said, on July 17th, 2008 at 6:04 pm

I didnt vote for him in his First term..
I didnt VOTE for him in his second term…

WHATS YOUR EXCUSE??

# 11 Jim W. said, on July 17th, 2008 at 6:06 pm

hmm, The Democrat Caucus of the U.S. House of Representatives… There’s a trusted source of impartial information if I ever saw one.

/dripping sarcasm

# 12 doug said, on July 17th, 2008 at 6:08 pm

#11. funny, I did not need the Dem Caucus to tell me that the price of gas is WAY up.

# 13 Sea Lawyer said, on July 17th, 2008 at 6:11 pm

#9, well at least you’ve demonstrated the accuracy of my first sentence.

here’s a little game – demonstrate to me how the president controls how much money an individual saves, and I will admit that the savings rate is a part of his legacy.

# 14 MikeN said, on July 17th, 2008 at 6:16 pm

This is weird, according to the BEA source they used for Real GDP growth, the recession never happened. Click on common NIPA tables, real GDP, then set 1998-2008, and you won’t find two quarters of negative GDP growth. Just one when Clinton was president and one when Bush was President. Nominal GDP shows no decreases.

# 15 MikeN said, on July 17th, 2008 at 6:20 pm

Unfortunately Pres Obama is likely to believe such things. He has already said in a debate he will raise the capital gains tax even if it means less revenue. One of the legacies of the Clinton years is that much of the growth happened because of conservative tax policies of lower taxes. Even the growth of the Bush years was due to the same. Tax revenues are higher than ever.

# 16 Sea Lawyer said, on July 17th, 2008 at 6:30 pm

And just to rain on your parade a tad more, the much ballyhooed Clinton surpluses were nothing more than an accounting charade, before you even take into account the fact that Social Security surpluses have been used for decades to offset deficit spending the general budget.

http://tinyurl.com/f9u2l

the best thing you can say is that this government has gone from terrible to worse, which hasn’t been helped by having a stubborn fool in the White House.

# 17 Al said, on July 17th, 2008 at 6:32 pm

I’m no big fan of George Bush, but if I remember correctly through a large portion of his time in office, the Democrats controlled Congress. They had the ability to prevent the war and to keep the country fiscally responsible, but I don’t remember them doing much to do that.

All sides are corrupt. The only reason the economy was good under Clinton is we were riding the wave of the .Com bubble.

# 18 Sea Lawyer said, on July 17th, 2008 at 6:38 pm

#17, Bush had Republican majorities in both houses of Congress his first full term. First two years of his second term, he had a narrow Republican House majority and a split Senate. Only these two years has he had Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress.

# 19 MikeN said, on July 17th, 2008 at 6:38 pm

Very selective use of years in that chart. They pick two years for health insurance, because they don’t want to show the numbers going up.

# 20 deowll said, on July 17th, 2008 at 7:09 pm

Okay, I don’t want to vote for McCain but if Obama is crazy enough to raise taxes in a depression/downturn/the economy aint growing rather than cut spending I’ve got to vote against him.

# 21 edwinrogers said, on July 17th, 2008 at 7:18 pm

I meet a lot of Americans, mostly skilled immigrants to New Zealand and others apparently under some kind of witness protection program who end up here, and apparently none of them voted for Bush.

# 22 GregAllen said, on July 17th, 2008 at 7:27 pm

Anyone who voted for George Bush TWICE should sit out an election or two and contemplate what horrible political judgment they have.

# 23 Gary, the dangerous infidel said, on July 17th, 2008 at 7:27 pm

Here’s a great YouTube video I came across. If you take some powerful psychedelic drugs, turn the volume on your computer all the way up, and play this video over and over, you might be able to convince yourself that Bush Was Right!

# 24 Hmeyers said, on July 17th, 2008 at 7:48 pm

My real question:

Will the unhappy grumpy sourpusses who hang around here become happy people when/if Obama is elected?

# 25 Hmeyers said, on July 17th, 2008 at 7:50 pm

Btw, I love the higher gas prices. So I’ll mark that one A++.

And you thought it would take Gore to get $4 gas, but a Republican did it! Who knew!

# 26 Hmeyers said, on July 17th, 2008 at 7:55 pm

Going for the hat trick:

My wish list for 2012:

1. $4 gallon gas (done!)
2. Figure out what kinds of food fat people eat and make it fucking expensive ($15 value meals at McDonalds or whatever it takes).
3. Tax non-diet soft drinks sky high because I can stand seeing obese children.
4. Remove the social security withholding tax cap.
5. Repeal the reduction in the estate tax (“death tax”) and get it back to 50%.

# 27 MikeN said, on July 17th, 2008 at 8:08 pm

Why don’t they compare the tax rates?
Or how about their hated greenhouse gas emissions?

# 28 Bryan P. Carney said, on July 17th, 2008 at 8:13 pm

#26 regarding the food fat people eat: they eat cheap food. I’m a poor guy so I know the reasoning behind eating cheap carbs. Meat and fresh veggies are very expensive. If I have five dollars to spend, I’m going to go the the store to purchase salty food or drive to a fast-food joint and buy enough for two meals.

Raise the minimum wage to $13/hr and some of these issues will be solved. Most people in the US aren’t fated for anything more than minimum wage. I don’t see how the employers’ margins can’t be adjusted to compensate for cost-of-living

Your other points are well taken.

# 29 Historic said, on July 17th, 2008 at 8:27 pm

Bush always says history will judge him and he is so right. All that good stuff will be in the George W Bush Presidential Lie/bury.

# 30 JPV said, on July 17th, 2008 at 8:32 pm

Sea Lawyer said

here’s a little game – demonstrate to me how the president controls how much money an individual saves, and I will admit that the savings rate is a part of his legacy.

Easy… things such as being against minimum wages and unions. Allowing illegal immigrants into the country, which lower wage for Americans. In general, by constantly implementing policies favoring the interests of big business, over the general citizenry, we have seen the wages of Americans remain flat for the last decade, while corporate profits soar.

# 31 Misanthropic Scott said, on July 17th, 2008 at 8:38 pm

Who knew the Onion would be right?

A lot of people I know. 300,000 more than thought the other way, if popular vote had any meaning. Oh well. Too bad we don’t live in a democratic nation (i.e. one person, one vote).

What amazes me is that Texas doesn’t fight this harder. I would have thought that California had the lowest number of electoral votes per capita. However, it turns out that it takes 4 votes in Texas to equal just one vote in Wyoming.

Ignoring the Bush family for a moment, does anyone really think that Wyoming residents have greater value than Texas residents?

http://tinyurl.com/b6hbt

# 32 JPV said, on July 17th, 2008 at 8:40 pm

Sea Lawyer said

here’s a little game – demonstrate to me how the president controls how much money an individual saves, and I will admit that the savings rate is a part of his legacy.

Also by using the Fed to create an artificial bubble, which has now burst and caused chaos in the banking industry, and necessitated bailouts which have further eroded the value of the dollar.

Due to this, and numerous other disastrous Bush administration economic policies, the dollar has lost nearly HALF it’s value since that idiot took office.

Oddly enough, when the value of the dollar declines, it’s harder for Americans to make ends meet, and therefore harder to save money. However, being a complete and utter moron, I don’t expect you to be able to understand that.

# 33 JPV said, on July 17th, 2008 at 8:43 pm

Misanthropic Scott said

Ignoring the Bush family for a moment, does anyone really think that Wyoming residents have greater value than Texas residents?

Yeah, actually I think that any pile of dried out dogshit has more value than any single IDIOT that resides in Texas.

# 34 Misanthropic Scott said, on July 17th, 2008 at 8:52 pm

#27 – MikeN,

Why don’t they compare the tax rates?

Tax percentage was a tad higher under Clinton. Funny though, it seemed that with a booming economy, most of us were able to afford the higher taxes. Now we can’t afford the lower ones.

http://tinyurl.com/5jevzp

Or how about their hated greenhouse gas emissions?

Seriously? GHG emissions are way up. They’ve been increasing year over year for generations. Neither administration did a damn thing about them.

Play with the data in this excel spreadsheet if you want.

http://tinyurl.com/59rlos

The data is from Energy Information Administration, Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/environment.html

# 35 natefrog said, on July 17th, 2008 at 9:50 pm

#13, sea lawyer;

You know what? You’re the one that made the claims, you defend them. You don’t get to ask me questions and change the topic.

Got that? Good.

# 36 Matt Garrett said, on July 17th, 2008 at 10:18 pm

Someone needs to pay attention to the FACT that most of that gas price rise occured AFTER the Demcrats took over Congress.

# 37 Glenn E. said, on July 17th, 2008 at 10:21 pm

We all keep forgetting (me too) that it’s Dick Cheney and pals who’s running us into the ground. GWB isn’t smart enough to push such a fiasco off alone. But he a great blame deflector for those that are, like Dick. When Obama or McCain gets into office. You can bet they’ll have some guys doing the real work of screwing things up for them too.

# 38 Sea Lawyer said, on July 17th, 2008 at 11:58 pm

#30: “Easy… things such as being against minimum wages and unions. Allowing illegal immigrants into the country, which lower wage for Americans… …”

Oh, Bush is “against unions” and illegals are jumping the border, let me go throw a second mortgage on the ol’ homestead and buy iPods for all the kids. Oh, I give up, we’ll just say that you win since this thread is really quite boring and it’s just not worth arguing with somebody who uses the Federal Reserve’s lowering of interest rates as an example of how Bush caused you to not save any money.

# 39 Badcam said, on July 18th, 2008 at 12:46 am

So where on the chart does it show just how much fatter everyone has gotten?

# 40 jescott418 said, on July 18th, 2008 at 3:20 am

I think many of these things like less people having health care, more debt, and decline in savings are problems government cannot solve.
These problems have been festering long before George Bush became president. Although I agree he and Congress have done little to prevent the housing mess and try and educate consumers on wise spending.
Many of our problems stem from business taking jobs overseas and into Mexico. These were jobs with health care, good wages which brought with it consumer spending. It was America’s demand for cheaper goods that provided the catalyst for companies to seek out cheaper labor.

# 41 BigCarbonFoot said, on July 18th, 2008 at 3:26 am

Yup, the Pres has ultimate power over everything. That’s why Obamalamadingdong is going to lower the oceans first thing when he gets in (he told us so in a recent speech).

# 42 Mr. Catshit said, on July 18th, 2008 at 3:29 am

I just love the way the wing nuts are all in such denial.

Face it, Bush is a disaster. Not only for the US, but also the world as a whole. I know you assholes don’t care and that is why we are in such a mess.

# 43 the answer said, on July 18th, 2008 at 3:30 am

At least now when band wagoners start complaining about bush they can quote these facts rather then saying “just because”

# 44 BigCarbonFoot said, on July 18th, 2008 at 3:55 am

If any of us are still alive and there’s still electricity to run the Internet after The Barack of Obama’s first term, the tune will be different. Things would definitely be a lot worse now if Gore or Kerry had gotten in.

# 45 bobbo said, on July 18th, 2008 at 4:03 am

#44–Bigfoot==I agree, Obama is going to get a lot of blame trying to clean up/survive the Bush legacy. God Save America.

# 46 smartalix said, on July 18th, 2008 at 4:09 am

Only the most disingenuous or stupid can even conjure up the audacity to defend Bush, the antimatter Midas who turns everything to shit with his touch. What a bunch of loser crybaby apologists. The country will be better, safer, and healthier financially when that empty suit leaves office, preferably in irons.

# 47 BigCarbonFoot said, on July 18th, 2008 at 4:09 am

Hah. Be thankful we’re alive to have this debate. Gore or Kerry and that’s not a given.

# 48 Cinaedh said, on July 18th, 2008 at 5:31 am

# 47 – BigCarbonFoot

Hah. Be thankful we’re alive to have this debate. Gore or Kerry and that’s not a given.

So, to paraphrase, you think all Democrats are out to murder all U.S. citizens, for no particular reason.

That’s an interesting delusion, to say the least. Did the aliens beam it directly into your brain or did they deposit it during the anal probe?

# 49 tcc3 said, on July 18th, 2008 at 5:33 am

Yes we’re “safe” so all this mess must have been worth it. What a sad little man you are. Go hide under your bed and cling to your propaganda.

# 50 Angus said, on July 18th, 2008 at 5:52 am

I think, more than anything else, the 21st century will be known for the loss of individual liberty to the Nanny state, by both sides of the aisle. The right to the megacorps, and the left to special interests, Washington has made it perefectly clear their our best interests of “the whole of the people” are not at the forefront of their actions.

# 51 Rabble Rouser said, on July 18th, 2008 at 5:59 am

This is what Egyptian-Americans, who are living in Da Nile get when they vote for something that they would like to have a beer with, rather than a person with a brain!

Dubya… WORST PRESIDENT EVER.

# 52 Dr Dodd said, on July 18th, 2008 at 6:32 am

#50 Angus

You make an excellent observation and one with every possibility of becoming true.

Politicians have successfully divided the people into Democrat and Republicans camps and have conquered us by always keeping us fighting among ourselves while they steal the whole show.

# 53 GregAllen said, on July 18th, 2008 at 6:44 am

>> Hmeyers said, on July 17th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
>> Will the unhappy grumpy sourpusses who hang around here become happy people when/if Obama is elected?

You act like we’re grumpy for no reason.

We’re grumpy because the Republicans have screwed America bad. Second Great Depression bad.

Yes, the looting of America makes me “grumpy.”

# 54 Thomas said, on July 18th, 2008 at 7:04 am

#53

> You act like we’re grumpy for no reason.

No. Your reasons are irrational. You are a fanatic and fanatics are not what elect Presidents.

# 55 Paddy-O said, on July 18th, 2008 at 7:21 am

This Omama guy is going to be interesting. He’ll probably get elected. He’ll have both houses of Congress with him. TOTAL power. Same as Bush league.

Since his “cure” for a recession is the opposite of natural economic law dictates, how are the Dems going to justify a continually weakening economy?

Looking for predictions of future justifications:

List them.

# 56 Mr. Fusion said, on July 18th, 2008 at 7:24 am

#54, Thomas,

No. Your reasons are irrational.

So everyone who has seen their job go to China is irrational?

So is everyone that can only find work for less than half their previous salary irrational?

So is everyone that has seen their gas go from just over $1 / gallon to over $4 is irrational?

So everyone who has seen the massive debt for the Iraq fiasco, to be paid by our children, irrational?

So is everyone watching various Government agencies break the law with impunity irrational?

So is everyone being overwhelmed by health care costs irrational?

So is everyone trying to buy something imported, for twice what it cost in 2000, irrational?

So is the 75% of Americans that do not approve of Bush irrational?

So is everyone worried that Government intrusion into our personal lives irrational?

So is everyone that thinks over 1,000,000 Americans on the “Do Not Fly” list is over kill irrational?

Or are you just some other fucked up irrational asshole trying to justify your vote for Bush?

You are a fanatic and fanatics are not what elect Presidents.

Then how the hell did that asswipe steal a second term?

# 57 Malcolm said, on July 18th, 2008 at 7:33 am

Don’t worry! McSame will continue all W’s wonderful policies. Mission Accomplished!

# 58 Mr. Fusion said, on July 18th, 2008 at 7:33 am

#55, Cow-Paddy

Since his “cure” for a recession is the opposite of natural economic law dictates, how are the Dems going to justify a continually weakening economy?

What ever the fuck “natural economic law” is. How about using some economic principle, something we haven’t seen in this country for 7 ½ years.

The economic health of America is weak because the Bush led Administration has sold it to the closest wing nut bidder. It will take a lot of time and effort to get it back to where it should be. And the wing nuts are going to complain, whine, and obstruct the whole time.

This is typical wing nut tactics though. Create the mess then blame the Democrats.

# 59 Paddy-O said, on July 18th, 2008 at 7:39 am

#58 “What ever the fuck “natural economic law” is. ”

And this is how the Dems will screw it up further,
(doesn’t seem possible after Boosh but it is) the people that support Omama think that economics and the forces that governs it is mutable by fiat.

# 60 The Monster's Lawyer said, on July 18th, 2008 at 7:43 am

#56 Mr ConFusion – Don’t confuse the neocons with the facts. To them this is all a manifestation of that commie left wing conspiracy started around the golden age of Nixon and Vietnam (good times, good times). There are no facts that can be presented that would change the neonut’s perception on reality. Unless the ‘facts’ were say presented by one of their high priests of talk radio.

# 61 natefrog said, on July 18th, 2008 at 7:48 am

Still waiting for your defense, sea lawyer.

# 62 MikeN said, on July 18th, 2008 at 7:51 am

Scott don’t you read your own links? Greenhouse gas emissions are down. The overall growth for 8 years is much lower than the previous 8.

# 63 Mr. Fusion said, on July 18th, 2008 at 7:54 am

#59, Cow-Paddy

#58 “What ever the fuck “natural economic law” is. ”

And this is how the Dems will screw it up further,
(doesn’t seem possible after Boosh but it is) the people that support Omama think that economics and the forces that governs it is mutable by fiat.

What ever the fuck are you saying? That is totally irrational. You can’t define “natural economic law” except to state the your Omama or mommy or whomever, will screw it up. Well I don’t know what your grandmother thinks and probably don’t care either. Obviously you don’t know anything about Economic Principles.

Typical wing nut tactic is to blame the Democrats for their fuck ups. It happens every time by whatever wing nuts show up. Geeze, I wish you morans could get a brain.

# 64 Paddy-O said, on July 18th, 2008 at 8:15 am

#63 – “Typical wing nut tactic is to blame the Democrats for their fuck ups. It happens every time by whatever wing nuts show up. Geeze, I wish you morans could get a brain.”

Read much? Boosh screwed up big time. None to blame but him (and repugs in congress).

Omama & dems will screw up just as bad. What don’t you understand?

# 65 lou said, on July 18th, 2008 at 9:16 am

I can’t think of one thing W has done to make life better for the average American.

# 66 natefrog said, on July 18th, 2008 at 9:21 am

#65;

January 20, 2009, comes to mind…

# 67 Mr. Fusion said, on July 18th, 2008 at 9:25 am

#64, Cow-Paddy

Read much? Boosh screwed up big time. None to blame but him (and repugs in congress).

Omama & dems will screw up just as bad. What don’t you understand?

Who your Omama is. I’m not sure but isn’t Omama Nigerian familiar for grandmother?

I notice you still haven’t explained this “natural economic law” you mentioned.

BTW, I am so glad you can read the future. Which stock do you forecast as a hot tip?

# 68 Paddy-O said, on July 18th, 2008 at 9:28 am

#67 “BTW, I am so glad you can read the future. Which stock do you forecast as a hot tip?”

Energy stocks.

# 69 Li said, on July 18th, 2008 at 9:32 am

#64 The “just as bad” part is what I don’t understand. I mean, I expect them to screw up, these are American politicians we are talking about, but if I were to believe that they would screw up just as bad I would be buying 100lb sacks of beans and building myself a bunker.

Even 4 years of ‘just as bad,’ at this rate = the Apocalypse (and I’m talking the rivers of blood version, not the opening enlightenment one). Have a little hope; the Dems are bad, but believing that they are just as bad as that lot of frauds, phonies, tortures, criminals, perverts, spendthrifts and even a few outright traitors is rich.

# 70 Li said, on July 18th, 2008 at 9:42 am

I did mean torturers, but living with their rule has been somewhat tortuous.

# 71 smartalix said, on July 18th, 2008 at 10:05 am

If this were a democratic president he’d already be in jail.

# 72 Paddy-O said, on July 18th, 2008 at 10:26 am

#71 “If this were a democratic president he’d already be in jail.”

No. LBJ & FDR didn’t go to jail. Now, Kennedy was shot for his stupidity but that’s different. He turned on the criminals that helped get him elected…

# 73 ECA said, on July 18th, 2008 at 10:31 am

26-28..
Its interesting about food.
Business makes changes to MAKE MONEY.
They will do anything to get costs down and make MORE money..
LOOK AT THE FOOD..and find out whats going on.
Being poor, I found I would rather eat food that TASTED GOOD, in smaller portions then to EAT CRAP that didnt even fill me up. ask the POP companies HOW drinking a Soda/beer, makes you thirsty.

30,
I would rather a CAP on MAX wages…or forcing Min wage and TOP wage, then ANYTHING gained ABOVE that is given to Stockholders and TAX..

REALLY, it would behoove the Gov to place into BUSINESS a STRUCTURE, for how a business is to be Accounted..HERE is the 1 TAX form..QUIT trying to GIVE back money to business.
========================================

PS.
I want a Box on the ballot…
NONE OF THE ABOVE.

We also need to clean up the LAW/rules for being able to RUN for president..They are so complicated and require you to have MONEY, LOTS of money to even consider running.
Which means you need a MAJOR group to back you. the only ones BACKED are the PUPPETS..

# 74 Paddy-O said, on July 18th, 2008 at 10:39 am

#73 “QUIT trying to GIVE back money to business”

How do “give back money” that doesn’t belong to the gov’t in the 1st place?

# 75 Mr. Fusion said, on July 18th, 2008 at 11:05 am

#72, Cow-Paddy,

No. LBJ & FDR didn’t go to jail.

Yup !!! Typical wing nut ruse. Shift the blame to a Democrat.

LBJ did more for Civil Rights and protecting minorities than any other President. He saved countess lives and raised a whole population from poverty and misery. That he continued and escalated the war Eisenhower started is another matter.

Why are you blaming FDR? He kept us out of war for two years before we were attacked. Would it be because even though he was crippled he had a mistress while you can’t even get laid?

Moranic wing nuts !!! Next you are going to blame George Soros for Climate Change.

# 76 Paddy-O said, on July 18th, 2008 at 11:10 am

#75 “Why are you blaming FDR? He kept us out of war for two years before we were attacked. ”

And allowed Pearl Harbor to happen. You have read the Navies Blue Book regarding disposition of US fleets while negotiating with hostile naval powers, right?

Or, how he kidnapped people from foreign countries based on ethnicity and imprisoned them in the U.S.?

I can’t keep educating you. Go get a K-12 education and then I’ll start answering your inanities…

# 77 Dr Dodd said, on July 18th, 2008 at 11:37 am

#75 Mr. Fusion
>”LBJ did more for Civil Rights and protecting minorities than any other President.”

You had better check your history. LBJ’s welfare programs literally destroyed the black family. The government made it possible for black males to father children then just walk away.

Yeah, LBJ was a real visionary.

# 78 Mr. Fusion said, on July 18th, 2008 at 11:39 am

#76, Cow-Paddy,

You really are living up to your name.

And allowed Pearl Harbor to happen. So it is FDR’s fault Japan attacked without warning. Next you will tell us he knew about the attack in advance.

I have no idea what the Navy Blue Book is. I suppose it excuses the Army Airforce’s conduct.

Or, how he kidnapped people from foreign countries based on ethnicity and imprisoned them in the U.S.?

While I don’t agree with what happened 65 years ago, imprisoning Japanese nationals and Japanese-Americans was ruled legal by the Supreme Court at the time.

I can’t keep educating you.

Wing nuts have a very difficult time differentiating between fact and fiction. When Rush, Savage, O’Reilly, or some other neo-con idiot leader tells ‘em sumten, they believe it without comment. Please quit posting such blatant bullshit. You’re embarrassing yourself.

# 79 Paddy-O said, on July 18th, 2008 at 11:40 am

#77 – “LBJ’s welfare programs literally destroyed the black family. The government made it possible for black males to father children then just walk away.”

I was bowled over when I read the studies of the stability of Black families before and after the LBJ “civil rights” legislation. Truly shocking.

# 80 Paddy-O said, on July 18th, 2008 at 11:51 am

#78 “I have no idea what the Navy Blue Book is. I suppose it excuses the Army Airforce’s conduct.”

And this is why your lack of education prevents you from “getting the point”.

The document in question dictated that when in the position we were in with Japan that you have your fleet’s whereabouts unknown to the enemy.

As CIC, FDR didn’t enforce this policy and thus let our fleet get sunk at anchor. Without his active malfeasance as CIC the attack would have been a loss for the Imperial navy.

How come you are ignoring his kidnapping of innocent civilians and throwing them into concentration camps?

Oh, well. Enough of educating on the basics.
I’ll send you a bill. What’s your address?

# 81 Dr Dodd said, on July 18th, 2008 at 11:54 am

#79 Paddy-O

Exactly right.

I’ve noticed that Mr. Fusion has this problem of distinguishing fact from socialist indoctrination.

# 82 Paddy-O said, on July 18th, 2008 at 12:01 pm

#81 That’s because he was educated (before dropping out) in a public school system that only “teaches” social indoc.

# 83 The Monster's Lawyer said, on July 18th, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Dr D, Paddy Cake, you guys got some kind of neocon circle jerk going on?

# 84 Dr Dodd said, on July 18th, 2008 at 12:42 pm

#83 Monster’s Lawyer

I guess that makes you the pivot man. Chug-a-lug.

# 85 Mr. Fusion said, on July 18th, 2008 at 12:54 pm

Cow-Paddy and Dr Duh,

If brains were made of dynamite you two wouldn’t have enough to blow your own nose.

#80, Cow-Paddy,

As CIC, FDR didn’t enforce this policy and thus let our fleet get sunk at anchor. Without his active malfeasance as CIC the attack would have been a loss for the Imperial navy.

That has to be the stupidest comment to come out of a neocon wing nut since someone said Bush is a good President.

How come you are ignoring his kidnapping of innocent civilians and throwing them into concentration camps?

Why? Was it illegal?

# 86 natefrog said, on July 18th, 2008 at 3:11 pm

Paddy-O;

Uh, seems your version of history is foggy.

The US Fleet didn’t sustain much in the way of damage; all major carriers were out to sea and were not damaged. These carriers ultimately led to Japan’s downfall. Conspiracy theorists claim FDR knew about the pending attack and that’s why the carriers were gone.

# 85 Mr. Fusion said, on July 18th, 2008 at 12:54 pm

Cow-Paddy and Dr Duh,

If brains were made of dynamite you two wouldn’t have enough to blow your own nose.

#80, Cow-Paddy,

As CIC, FDR didn’t enforce this policy and thus let our fleet get sunk at anchor. Without his active malfeasance as CIC the attack would have been a loss for the Imperial navy.

That has to be the stupidest comment to come out of a neocon wing nut since someone said Bush is a good President.

How come you are ignoring his kidnapping of innocent civilians and throwing them into concentration camps?

Wait, are you talking about Bush?

# 87 natefrog said, on July 18th, 2008 at 3:14 pm

Err, my last point was meant to be directed solely at Paddy.

How come you are ignoring his kidnapping of innocent civilians and throwing them into concentration camps?

Wait, are you talking about Bush?

# 88 RSweeney said, on July 18th, 2008 at 3:32 pm

Thank heavens the liberals and Democrats have been so supportive of President Bush since day one.

# 89 MikeN said, on July 18th, 2008 at 6:42 pm

That list of country attitudes is bogus. The numbers for 2000 come from a different source.

# 90 Mr. Fusion said, on July 19th, 2008 at 3:30 am

#89, Lyin’ Mike,

So do you have better numbers? How about some numbers that refute these?

# 91 Paddy-O said, on July 19th, 2008 at 6:54 am

#85 “How come you are ignoring his kidnapping of innocent civilians and throwing them into concentration camps?

Why? Was it illegal?”

No more illegal than anything Boosh has done…

# 92 QB said, on July 19th, 2008 at 7:14 am

#19 Que pasa?

http://www.cbpp.org/8-29-06health.htm

# 93 Thomas said, on July 19th, 2008 at 7:15 am

#80
> The document in question dictated that
> when in the position we were in with
> Japan that you have your fleet’s
> whereabouts unknown to the enemy.
>
>> As CIC, FDR didn’t enforce this
>> policy and thus let our fleet
>> get sunk at anchor. Without his
>> active malfeasance as CIC the
>> attack would have
>> been a loss for the Imperial navy.

While it is true that basic strategy states that if you are on the brink of war with a country, especially a naval power, you ensure that your fleet’s whereabouts are kept secret, Pearl was widely known as the major American naval base in the Pacific. The Japanese had spies all over Hawaii sending telemetry about the fleet’s movements. Because of a series of fortuitous events, they were unable to locate or confirm the location the American carriers.

However, here’s the kicker, had the fleet not been at Pearl, the war would have likely gone far worse. The original Japanese attack plan was to wipe out the fuel stores on the third wave of the attack. For whatever reason, they decided against this given the utter destruction of the first two waves and *THAT* is what saved our bacon. The entire Pacific fleet’s fuel supply was at Hawaii. Had they hit that, what fleet we had remaining would have entirely immobile.

It is disingenuous to blame FDR for Pearl. There were thousands of false alarms in the weeks leading up to the attack. The US Military knew the odds were high for an attack. It was thought that Pearl would be a poor target because of its shallow harbor and it would be incredibly difficult to sneak up on it. Obviously, they were wrong on both accounts.

That said, FDR did intern thousands of Americans with no trial or just cause. Lincoln did the same.

#85
> How come you are ignoring his kidnapping of
> innocent civilians and throwing them into
> concentration camps?
>
>> Why? Was it illegal?

Could you be any more of a hypocrite? At least the vast majority of people that Bush threw into Gitmo were not Americans and thus their rights under American Constitutional law is/was questionable (although he crossed the line with the MCA which let him throw any person, American or not, into Gitmo). In FDR’s case, they *were* Americans and should have been afforded the same Constitutional protections as any other American.

# 94 natefrog said, on July 19th, 2008 at 8:09 am

#93;

While the internment of many Japanese Americans was reprehensible, at least FDR had formal declarations of war (both against other countries and against us), which therefore made it much more legally acceptable. Not morally acceptable, however.

Remind me who we’re formally at war with right now? Oh, right, nobody.

# 95 QB said, on July 19th, 2008 at 8:41 am

#94 “Remind me who we’re formally at war with right now?”

North Korea. Yea really. Still. Go figure.

# 96 montanaguy said, on July 19th, 2008 at 10:55 am

Whoa, what’s with those stinking Germans?

# 97 ECA said, on July 19th, 2008 at 12:30 pm

93,
you could also add that MOST of the western islands were already invaded, and we had NOTHING to do with them..
Unless you wanted our fleet on the mainland, Hawaii was the Farthest point.
ALSO,
Our fleet at the time was OLD and almost obsolete.
It could be said that we DARED Japan to destroy it. And it lent to building NEWER BETTER FASTER ships. And gave us the initiative to Make MORE war weapons for the Navy.

# 98 brendal said, on July 19th, 2008 at 2:48 pm

#93 “In FDR’s case, they *were* Americans and should have been afforded the same Constitutional protections as any other American.”

#94

Both of you are in need of a history course.

He had people kidnapped from South America who weren’t citizens of the US OR Japan.

When you guys have finished high school you can engage me again. Until then…

# 99 Thomas said, on July 19th, 2008 at 3:17 pm

#98
First, my statement is still valid: FDR arrested American citizens and tossed them into prison. Second, while his acts in Latin America were reprehensible, I still think extracting foreign nationals during a World War is less of an issue than summarily arresting American citizens without habeas corpus or due process. Going into other nationals to extract potential enemy sympatheizers simply shows that in a World War, no place is truly neutral. However, it does shed light on hypocracy with which the left view Bush’s policy at Gitmo.

What would change my mind about the severity of the Latin American operations would be the level of knowledge that US administration had about the German concentration camps given that they were trading Jews for American prisoners. From what I know about that period, Churchill became aware of what the Germans were doing by late 1943 or so but whether he relayed that information to Roosevelt is another question.

# 100 Paddy-O said, on July 19th, 2008 at 3:30 pm

#99

I’m sure there are “good” justifications for Bush’s illegal activities too. Just as people can justify FDR’s criminal acts… Slippery slope, no?

One could say that JFK started an unnecessary war that cost over 50k American lives. So, Bush hasn’t done as bad as JFK. Correct?

# 101 Thomas said, on July 19th, 2008 at 4:03 pm

#100
The comparison of Vietnam to Iraq is that of apples to oranges. Different enemies, different types of enemies, different styles of combat, different styles of management, different global objectives etc.

Second, the Constitution contains no explicit promise to respect the sovereignty of foreign nations in a time of war, whereas it does contain a promise of protected rights to American citizens. That is the difference.

There is no justifying FDR’s actions. He has been lambasted for generations about his internment of the Japanese. Ironically, Lincoln gets more of a free pass in terms of imprisoning American citizens without trial than FDR which is doubly ironic since the nation was not officially at war. (Since Congress can’t declare war and since the Confederacy was not recognized as a nation, Congress never declared war against the South. They simply authorized the use of force to quell the rebellion).

# 102 Thomas said, on July 19th, 2008 at 4:08 pm

> Since Congress can’t declare war

That should have read:

Since Congress can’t declare war on itself

# 103 Mr. Fusion said, on July 19th, 2008 at 7:14 pm

#98, Brendal,

He had people kidnapped from South America who weren’t citizens of the US OR Japan.

&

#100, Cow-Paddy

I’m sure there are “good” justifications for Bush’s illegal activities too. Just as people can justify FDR’s criminal acts… Slippery slope, no?

*

The internment of Japanese, Italian, and German nationals during WWII is reprehensible. During WWII though, it met with approval from the Supreme Court. The camps, while not luxurious, were not concentration camps. Inmates were well fed; often better than the guards, had good health care, and were usually paid for any labor. Most children in the camps were schooled and adults were allowed to pursue activities. Very few, and only after internal trials, were housed separately from the population.

And those criminal acts are? It is claimed the FDR kidnapped several foreign nationals from Latin America. Not true. I spent several hours searching and I could not find one reference suggesting that. Of course, I purposely stayed away from the idiot sources such as Conservipedia.

Although I know you won’t, try giving a reference that FDR had foreign nationals kidnapped. Just saying it is taught in school is insufficient.

Now compare that with Bush and Gitmo. There, the inmates were kidnapped on battlefields, usually by Afghanis and sold to the Americans as Terrorists. Some were kidnapped in other countries, tortured and then sent to Guantanamo. All have been dehumanized. All reports indicate that they have been tortured, deprived of counsel, and had their legal rights violated. Foreign nationals of countries we are allied with are refused access to these prisoners. In spite of the Geneva Conventions that regulate how prisoners are to be treated during war, Bush has ignored them and invented his own rules.

*

Regardless, your version of history is bullshit. Both of you are idiots. Cow-Paddy made a stupid comment in #55 and has yet to explain it. Instead of telling us what “natural economic law” is, he has tried to steer the topic onto something else.

The standard practice here with the wing nuts is to blame the Democrats for whatever bullshit Bush is responsible for. Somehow just saying JFK, or Clinton did it is enough for them. It doesn’t matter that neither had done anything like that, just say they did and Bush looks better. And that makes you two idiots morans.

Yet the tragedy is you might have a vote. Stupid people should not be allowed to vote.

NOTE. I have heavily edited this from a much longer piece.

# 104 Paddy-O said, on July 19th, 2008 at 7:24 pm

#102 “Since Congress can’t declare war on itself”

Very good point.

# 105 Thomas said, on July 19th, 2008 at 8:52 pm

#103

RE: Internment camps

You forgot the part of about forfeiture of your assets.

It is not known whether some of those that were eventually interned were tortured. We may never know as records of such events are surely lost, destroyed or never kept. I’m sure the Jews we traded to the Germans for other Americans were treated just peachy.

> Now compare that with Bush and Gitmo.
> There, the inmates were kidnapped
> on battlefield

If you are a combatant, your statement is a non-sequitur. If you are on the battlefield and you are a combatant you are captured not kidnapped.

Furthermore, for the Geneva Convention(s) to apply, a person must be soldier of the nation in question. Terrorists that are “captured on the battlefield” are not allied to any nation nor wear any nation’s uniform. Therefore, it is unclear where the Geneva convention(s) apply. Are they soldiers or merely a criminals?

> Stupid people should not be allowed to vote.

And yet you want to vote. The irony is palatable.

# 106 Mr. Fusion said, on July 20th, 2008 at 5:59 pm

#105, Thomas,

You forgot the part of about forfeiture of your assets.

Very true. The Japanese Americans were given a very short time to dispose of their assets. Since they did not mix into the general population well, all their friends were also swept up too, so there was no one to buy or care for their property. A very regrettable circumstance and not one of America’s finer moments.

But it was legal.
Selective Internment. Pursuant to the Alien Enemy Act of 1798 (50 USC 21-24), which remains in effect today, the US may apprehend, intern and otherwise restrict the freedom of “alien enemies” upon declaration of war or actual, attempted or threatened invasion by a foreign nation.

In 1944, the Supreme Court upheld the legality of the internment. But, again, not the brightest moment in American history.

It is not known whether some of those that were eventually interned were tortured.

I do not recall ever reading of any Japanese or German internees that were tortured. I would assume that some sadistic guard, at a minimum, would have taken liberties and abused the internees. There were very few Japanese that were jailed. Almost all went straight to internment camps. Germans, on the other hand, were usually arrested before being sent to internment camps. It is quite possible that the FBI or INS tortured some trying to extract information. My understanding is that this was not a general rule.

I’m sure the Jews we traded to the Germans for other Americans were treated just peachy.

I am unaware that any Jews were repatriated. My understanding is that Germany didn’t want any Jews, period. Most of those Germans repatriated were German civilians willing to return to Germany. Many of the Germans were so disenchanted with their treatment by the American government they wanted to be repatriated. Others were diplomats, POWs, and citizens caught by the declaration of war.

If you are on the battlefield and you are a combatant you are captured not kidnapped.

Most of those “captured” were done so by the Northern Alliance. Remember, there were damn few Americans or western allies actually in the field. Most of the actual fighting was done by Afghanis. Since the Americans were paying a bounty for Taliban and al Quada fighters, the Northern Alliance would kidnap their innocent enemies or those they had a grudge with and turn them over to the Americans for the bounty.

Terrorists that are “captured on the battlefield” are not allied to any nation nor wear any nation’s uniform.

And if the nation does not equip their soldiers with uniforms? Does being captured without a iniform automatically make someone a terrorist? What about a “Home Guard” or “Militia”? Do they also need a uniform? While I understand your point, I think it might be too big a brush. (Although it might not apply here, when is it a uniform?)

And yet you want to vote. The irony is palatable.

Touche’.

Since you have made reasonable arguments, I respect you even if I don’t agree. Each point has been well presented and articulately made. There is a world of difference between making ignorant pronouncements and your postings. Plus I got to spend another couple of hours researching repatriation.

# 107 Thomas said, on July 20th, 2008 at 7:19 pm

#106
I’ll leave the rest of your comment to rest as there is not much left to say. However, I will answer this question:

> And if the nation does not equip
> their soldiers with uniforms?
> Does being captured without a
> iniform automatically make someone
> a terrorist?

The uniform is symbolic of a soldier’s allegiance to and authorization by a specific nation to conduct military operations. If we are at war with Germany and a German solider is captured in civilian clothes, the German government can still sue for release or demand fair treatment under the Geneva Conventions. The uniform is less critical than they can prove they are a member of an opposing military with which we are at war and thus under orders to conduct military operations that are sanctioned by their home nation. However, if that same captured German is a civilian and thus not a member of the German military, their rights under the Geneva Convention are questionable. If the person captured is a civilian from a country with which we are not at war and is captured conducting military operations against us, then their rights under the Geneva Conventions are even more questionable. The terrorists captured in Afghanistan and Iraq fall into this last category.

# 108 Mr. Fusion said, on July 20th, 2008 at 9:01 pm

#107, Thomas,

I understand your argument and agree it makes sense. That concept might have made sense though 50 years ago, but war today is seldom troops facing each other behind definite lines. I don’t know the answer.

If the inmates at Guantanamo are criminals, then they deserve a fair trial before an impartial tribunal. If they are combatants, then they should be treated under the Geneva Convention. There is no Internationally known category as “Enemy Combatant”.

Sometimes doing the right thing is tough. That, though, is what separates the civilized societies from the uncivilized. As a nation of laws we either respect the law and hold those who break the law accountable or we have no moral right to expect lesser people to obey the law.