Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

I'll give you two guesses which party was throwing
roadblocks in front of FDR helping other countries fight the
Nazis.


Sean Corbett wrote:
Parties aren't in the Constitution. The "common Defence" clause is.

Considering that the Axis directly attacked a U.S. ship
(look it up), how is using the Constitution to block help
to the Allies considered providing for "common defense?"

Any lame excuse is good enough to stand up for your buddies,
right? Just like any trumped-up pretext is good enough to
attack your political foes.

DSK

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

Any lame excuse is good enough to stand up for your buddies,
right? Just like any trumped-up pretext is good enough to
attack your political foes.


Sean Corbett wrote:
You mean foes like Lyndon "I'll give you your damn war" Johnson? Or
Franklin "I know we're going to get attacked and I'm going to let it happen
because war is the only way to disguise the fact that 7 years into the New
Deal unemployment is still 15%" Roosevelt?

My goodness Sean, if you don't like that corner, why did you
paint yourself into it?

BTW you shouldn't make up bogus statistics, it is far too
easy to look up the facts.

DSK

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

DSK wrote:
Any lame excuse is good enough to stand up for your buddies,
right? Just like any trumped-up pretext is good enough to
attack your political foes.


Sean Corbett wrote:
You mean foes like Lyndon "I'll give you your damn war" Johnson? Or
Franklin "I know we're going to get attacked and I'm going to let it happen
because war is the only way to disguise the fact that 7 years into the New
Deal unemployment is still 15%" Roosevelt?

My goodness Sean, if you don't like that corner, why did you
paint yourself into it?

BTW you shouldn't make up bogus statistics, it is far too
easy to look up the facts.

DSK

It doesn't matter. Sean must goose-step to the party. Rush is telling
him to.

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

BTW you shouldn't make up bogus statistics, it is far too
easy to look up the facts.


Sean Corbett wrote:
They're not bogus, but you'd never know because you've never posted a fact
that you've looked up.

My my... guess it depends on what you consider "fact." In
any event, I have certainly never posted the sort of
ideologically-derived fantasy you specialize in.

Were you implying that "the new deal was a failure" (common
catchphrase among fascist pinheads) by saying that
unemployment was 15% at the beginning of WW2 (from the U.S.
perspective)?

If so, that is bogus. Unemployment went down rather
dramatically in the 1930s. It was still a very high number
compared to what we're comfortable with today... that's why
it was the Great Depression (duh).

That it went down even more dramatically in 1941 just shows
that FDR was on the right track (at least, from the
standpoint of the economic good of the country as well as
providing for common defense) to support the Allies, since
the Republican efforts to profit from doing business with
the Axis didn't reduce unemployment hardly at all.

DSK

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

Gene Kearns wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 11:27:33 -0400, Black Dog
wrote:



I remember, I had a bit of a problem back in university because both my
thesis advisors believed in cold-fusion and I was sceptical.


Then you support my thesis about a screwball or two on every faculty!

Of course there is.(but many more in arts depts than sciences :-)

You're implying my profs were it. No darlin' - I was the screwball, the
sceptic, the "different" thinking one (my differences usually explained
away by my gender or background in the arts). They were the guys who
taught me how to tow a party line.(although I'd never pass an exam in
that, obviously)

I looked at the list of scientists who sent the "reconsider kyoto"
message to Steven Harper a couple of weeks back. One prof from my old
uni is there (not one my "wacky" advisors either), and I assure you the
man is no screwball, nor does he work for Exxon, nor would he support a
view for the grant money. He is seriously brilliant but dour in a dutch
sort of way. He is highly regarded by the other faculty, publishes
regularly and has honours coming out the yinyang. Most students don't
like him because he's "too hard" (people who take paleo because they
"like dinosaurs" don't make it through the first class)
OTOH the prof at the uni who is coining it hand over fist leading the
Centre for Climate Change "Research" is a local media personality and
political player who AKAIK hasn't done actual serious research since he
was a student himself.
And that is just one tiny example at one tiny university.

And that is all the goddammed bait I'm swallowing today.

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 15:41:05 GMT, Sean Corbett
wrote:


You wrote:


Most of the world was two years into WW2 while the
US lounged around.

The United States has this inconvenient thing called the Constitution which
required us to "lounge around".


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
King lands a quick right, but Corbett returns with a stiff jab,
followed by a left upper cut.

So, you genuinely think that "providing for the common
defense" means to have money-grubbing contracts with the
Nazis, while they are sinking our ships, and blocking FDR
from actually making plans to defend the U.S. from the Axis?

BTW my earlier post contained a typo... should have read "it
was NOT a *world* war until we joined in."

DSK

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 15:27:39 -0400, DSK wrote:

BTW you shouldn't make up bogus statistics, it is far too
easy to look up the facts.


Sean Corbett wrote:
They're not bogus, but you'd never know because you've never posted a
fact
that you've looked up.

My my... guess it depends on what you consider "fact." In
any event, I have certainly never posted the sort of
ideologically-derived fantasy you specialize in.

King rallies for a huge right.

Were you implying that "the new deal was a failure" (common
catchphrase among fascist pinheads) by saying that
unemployment was 15% at the beginning of WW2 (from the U.S.
perspective)?

Followed swiftly by a uppercut.

If so, that is bogus. Unemployment went down rather
dramatically in the 1930s. It was still a very high number
compared to what we're comfortable with today... that's why
it was the Great Depression (duh).

A right and a left.

That it went down even more dramatically in 1941 just shows
that FDR was on the right track (at least, from the
standpoint of the economic good of the country as well as
providing for common defense) to support the Allies, since
the Republican efforts to profit from doing business with
the Axis didn't reduce unemployment hardly at all.

Oh - a low blow!!! Corbett is staggering, but still on his feet!!

DING DING DING - and that's the end of Round Two!!

You could have been Howard Cosell's replacement!

Good job!

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

In
any event, I have certainly never posted the sort of
ideologically-derived fantasy you specialize in.

Sean Corbett wrote:
That's ALL you've EVER posted.


In other words, reality is knocking, but you won't let it in?



Were you implying that "the new deal was a failure"


No implication necessary.


Meaning what? Why not say it right out loud?



by saying that
unemployment was 15% at the beginning of WW2 (from the U.S.
perspective)?


Sean Corbett wrote:
You claimed it wasn't.

Wrong.

...Now you're saying it was. Either way you've lied.
Again.

Quote me & prove it.

DSK

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 20:37:15 GMT, Sean Corbett
wrote:

You wrote:

BTW you shouldn't make up bogus statistics, it is far too
easy to look up the facts.


Sean Corbett wrote:
They're not bogus, but you'd never know because you've never posted a
fact that you've looked up.

My my... guess it depends on what you consider "fact."

Yes it does, which is why that's what I deal in, unlike you.

In
any event, I have certainly never posted the sort of
ideologically-derived fantasy you specialize in.

That's ALL you've EVER posted.

Were you implying that "the new deal was a failure"

No implication necessary.

by saying that
unemployment was 15% at the beginning of WW2 (from the U.S.
perspective)?

You claimed it wasn't. Now you're saying it was. Either way you've lied.
Again.

Sean, are you a Bush-Cheney supporter? If so, please take your political
crap elsewhere.

If not, please take it elsewhere anyway!

a.politics would be good. Maybe you could get a bunch of name-callers to
follow you.
--
John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

Throwing gasoline on the fire...
 

On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 21:01:36 GMT, Mys Terry
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 16:58:29 -0400, Harry Krause wrote:


Sean Corbett wrote:


...Now you're saying it was. Either way you've lied.
Again.



Seanboy has all the polished debating skills of a third-grade dropout
who inherited a .22 rifle, a toothless wife, and a trailer next to a
national forest where he can hunt squirrels.

Then it's a pretty fair match up with Doug.


T'would be nice if the whole crew of y'all would take it to a.politics or
one of the other political flame-fests which abound elsewhere.
--
John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************