Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Grover Cleveland

2007-06-30T15:04:00Z

JamesBenjamin:

==Name Controversy==
I thought that Stephen was his ''first'' name not second name. could someone clear this up? I have a book about him it says his first name was Stephen, not Grover. --[[User:Additioner]] 15:01 19 April 2007

"He was the only Democrat elected to the Presidency in the Republican dynasty that lasted from 1850s to when Roosevelt was President." '''What happened to Woodrow Wilson? He was a Democrat who served from 1913-1921.'''

Okay, I fixed it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:53, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::also: "as a result of the Democratic failure to win the American Civil War." - WHAT? The democrats at the time all were in the south, and had they "won the civil war" the south would have won. I realize that we're trying to keep this as a conservative type thing here, but thats just weird lunacy. I'm removind that part of the sentence. [[User:JamesBenjamin|JamesBenjamin]] 18:18, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Actually James, that has nothing to do with trying to keep it conservative. It has to do with a vandal who tried to write in a form to make it seem conservatively ridiculous, as you have noted. I'm afraid the article is still a bit of a minefield with similar imbedded instances. Thank you for helping to clear one up. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:24, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

::::Good point, I'll keep an eye out for such lunacy in the future.[[User:JamesBenjamin|JamesBenjamin]] 11:04, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

Bill Clinton

2007-06-29T23:37:34Z

JamesBenjamin: /* Early Political Career */ Minor grammar edit, also pulled out erronious "ADs". When talking about modern history, the AD is not normally used.

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="250" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:billclinton.jpg|200px|United States President Bill Clinton]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: indigo no-repeat scroll top left;"|Bill Clinton;
Forty-second President of the United States
|-
|Born
|August 19, 1946
|-
|Term
|1993-2000
|-
|}

'''William Jefferson''' "Bill" '''Clinton''' '''(August 19, 1946 - present)''' served as the 42nd [[President of the United States of America]] from 1993-2000, following [[George H. W. Bush]] and preceding [[George W. Bush]].

== Early Life ==

Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe III on August 19, 1946 AD in Hope, Arkansas. His father, William Jefferson Blythe Jr. died in a car accident while his mother was pregnant with him. Clinton's mother later married Roger Clinton, and the four year-old William was given his stepfather's name.[http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html]

Clinton was active in high school, participating in various student government organizations as well as playing the saxophone. Roger Clinton, however, made Bill's family life unpleasant by repeatedly abusing Clinton's mother and her children. Bill Clinton would eventually stand up to his stepfather in high school, forcing his stepfather to stop beating his mother and kicking him out of the house. [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=50652] After Roger Clinton underwent alcohol rehabilitation, he would eventually rejoin the family.

Clinton attended [[Georgetown University]], then [[Oxford University]] after receiving a prestigious [[Rhodes Scholarship]]. He also then earned a Juris Doctorate from [[Yale University]] in 1973. At Yale he met [[Hillary Clinton|Hillary Rodham]], whom he would later marry [http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html].

== Early Political Career ==

After returning to live in Arkansas, Clinton was elected [[Attorney General]] of Arkansas in 1976. Two years later, he was elected Governor of Arkansas, becoming the youngest governor in the country at 32 years-old. Though defeated in 1980, Clinton won back the governorship in 1982 and held it until becoming President in 1992.

In December 1989 a three-judge district federal court held Bill Clinton's state-wide legislative reapportionment plan violated Section 2 of the [[Voting Rights Act|Voting Rights Act of 1965]], 42 U.S.C. 1973. 1990 the [[Supreme Court]] of the United States found in the case of ''[[Clinton vs Jeffers]]'' <ref>Findings of the Supreme Court of the United States in [http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1990/sg900402.txt Clinton vs Jeffers] No. 90-394 (1990) on appeal 730 F. Supp. 196, 198-201 (ED Ark. 1989) (three-judge court), aff'd, No. 89-2008 (Jan. 7, 1991).</ref> the former Arkansas Governeror and [[Democratic]] president had violated the Voting Rights Act. The Justices findings were,

{{Cquote|Bill Clinton does not dispute here -- that "violations of the [[Fourteenth amendment|fourteenth]] or [[fifteenth amendment]] justifying equitable relief have occurred in Arkansas."

In May 1990, the district court turned to those claims, holding that "the State of Arkansas has committed a number of constitutional violations of the voting rights of black citizens." J.S. App. A5. In particular, the court determined that the "State has systematically and deliberately enacted new majority-vote requirements for municipal offices, in an effort to frustrate black political success in elections traditionally requiring only a plurality to win." In 1990...Devotion to majority rule for local offices lay dormant as long as the plurality system produced white office-holders. But whenever black candidates used this system successfully -- and victory by a plurality has been virtually their only chance of success in at-large elections in majority-white cities – the response was swift and certain. Laws were passed in an attempt to close off this avenue of black political victory.}}

The court therefore concluded that

{{Cquote|This series of laws represents a systematic and deliberate attempt to reduce black political opportunity. Such an attempt is plainly unconstitutional. It replaces a system in which blacks could and did succeed, with one in which they almost certainly cannot. The inference of [[bigotry|racial motivation]] is inescapable.}}

== Presidency==
[[Image:Somalia.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Poster to end the "racist occupation of Somalia"; eighteen US soldiers were killed and some of their bodies were bodies were dragged through the streets, [http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_id=13022]]]
Clinton won in 1992 with 43% of the popular vote versus President [[George H. W. Bush's]] 37%, capitalizing on public discontent with a weak economy and public displeasure with Bush's proposed tax increases, and Ross Perot, a third candidate. In his first two years in office, 1993 through 1994, Clinton was unable to "reform" health-care in the United States with a [[socialism| socialized]] health-care plan. It was a tough sell in the wake of the collapse of Soviet Bloc only a few years earlier. His approach consisted of appointing a planning committee with secret members to reshape this important sector of the economy.{{fact}} The [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] successfully sued to force disclosure of the committee financing, expenses and membership. The program ultimately became so unpopular after two years the Democratically controlled Congress shielded its members records by never bringing it to floor for a vote.

In 1994, voters expressed their high disapproval of a Congress controlled by Democrats by giving a victory to Republicans in Congress. This event was tagged the "Republican Revolution," and began a series of showdowns with the Republican-led Congress.{{fact}} These showdowns were epitomized by the budget conflict with then-Speaker of the House [[Newt Gingrich]] in 1995. Gingrich refused to pass Clinton's budget proposal, and the latter threatened to shut down the government as Reagan had done in the 1980s. Clinton did not back down, however, and eventually had his budget passed [http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/commentprint082800d.html]. This showdown backfired for the Republicans, as it reinvigorated Clinton's flagging approval ratings. [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Clinton_approval_rating.JPG].

In late 1995, President Clinton dispatched some 20,000 U.S. troops to [[Bosnia]].

Clinton was reelected in 1996 and carried 49.2% of the popular vote against Republican candidate ([[Robert Dole | Bob Dole]]), who won 41%, and "populist" candidate, [[H. Ross Perot]], who won 8%. During Clinton's second term, together with the Republican-controlled Congress, he produced record federal budget surpluses reaching $236 billion by the year 2000, and representing a net federal budget gain of $526 billion. <ref> [http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm Congressional Budget Office figures]</ref>

He spent much of the remainder of his presidency combating scandals. A special prosecutor's report was not released until well into Clinton's second term, and brought documented Clinton giving false testimony in the Paula Jones civil lawsuit while President which resulted in his impeachment and disbarment from the legal profession.{{fact}} The main charge was that he had committed perjury in a civil suit. The perjured testimony directly related to an attempt to defraud the plainitff of damages. The Senate failed to make clear what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors. <ref>[http://www.australianpolitics.com/usa/clinton/trial/statements/lieberman.shtml Statement by Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Connecticut)], Congressional Record for Friday, February 12, 1999.</ref>

During Clinton's presidency the [[terrorist]] group [[al-Qaeda]] conducted the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, simulataneous bombings of the US embassies in [[Kenya]] and [[Tanzania]] in 1998, and the attack on the [[USS Cole]] in 2000. Terrorist leader [[Osama bin Laden]] <ref>[http://www.bannerofliberty.com/OS8-98MQC/8-24-1998.1.html Did Bill Clinton Smooth the Way for Bin Laden to Become the World's Most Successful Terrorist?], Mary Mostert, Original Sources, August 24, 1998.</ref> issued two public [[fatwa]]s declaring War on America. <ref>[http://www.kimsoft.com/2001/binladenwar.htm Bin Laden's Declaration of War], 1998.</ref> In the 1998 fatwa <ref>Bernard Lewis, [http://www.msu.edu/course/iss/325/stein/read-325-3.htm#Lewis License to Kill], Foreign Affairs, November/December 1998.</ref> bin Laden told ''[[Jihad|jihadist]]s'' worldwide,

{{Cquote|Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge, but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by [[Allah]] and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut, [[Aden]] and [[Mogadishu]]. <ref>[http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a1097mohamedinterview&scale=0#a1097mohamedinterview October 1997: [[Ali Mohamed]] Tells FBI He Helped Al-Qaeda Kill US Soldiers, But FBI Takes No Action]</ref>}}

Bin Laden told ''ABC News'' at the time, "We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets." <ref>The 9-11 Commission Report, [http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec2.pdf2. The Foundation of the New Terrorism], Official Government Edition, GPO, 2004.</ref>

Suspicions often arose during Clinton's tenure about the timing of [[cruise missile]] attacks to manipulate public sympathy at crucial points when his approval ratings sagged. On several occassions <ref>[http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NzhjODk1ODg4M2NiODU4Yzc3YWE1OTA1MDNmYWQ5M2Y= The Facts About Clinton and Terrorism], Byron York, ''National Review Online'', September 11, 2006. </ref> generally when the approval ratings dipped to 47%, surprise cruise missile attacks <ref>[http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/12/21/wwwh8d21.html Airstrikes Against Iraq: 'What Happens Now?'], U.S. Information Agency ''Daily Digest'', December 21, 1998. </ref> where launched which resulted in a 10 point gain in the public opinion polls. Nick Gillespie of ''Reason'' remarked,
{{Cquote|Consider, for instance, the relative lack of scrutiny accorded the August 20 cruise missile attacks on Afghanistan and [[Sudan]] … immediately after the bombing, polls showed that close to half of all Americans thought the missile strikes were meant to divert attention from the president's sex life… the Sudanese bombing suggests something else as well: If and when the public's and the media's attention shifts from the president's sex life to wider-ranging inquiries about how he makes deadly serious policy decisions…" <ref>[http://www.reason.com/news/show/30827.html Bombs Away - Troubling questions about the U.S. attack on Sudan], ''Reason'', December 1998. </ref>}}

Clinton also signed into law the [[Violence Against Women Act]], which opened the federal courts to claims of domestic disputes between men and women, which had always been handled under state rather than federal law. Portions regarding civil rights remedies were later found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Clinton left office with an approval rating of 65%, the highest of any modern president, and remains the only modern president to leave office with a higher approval rating than he had when he took office. <ref> [http://uspolitics.about.com/od/polls/l/bl_historical_approval.htm Presidential Approval Ratings]</ref>

== Whitewater Affair ==

His close personal business partnerships with James McDougall in a failed Savings and Loan business venture lead to investigation of the [[Whitewater]] affair. Several of the people involved with the sale of land prior to the Clinton presidency were indicted, but the Clintons were never charged with a crime.{{fact}}

== Impeachment ==

On Aug. 17, 1998, after relentless media attention, leaks, and news of Lewinsky's upcoming testimony, Clinton made history by becoming the first U.S. president to testify in front of a grand jury in an investigation of his own possibly criminal conduct. In an address to the nation, he admitted to having had an "inappropriate relationship" with Lewinsky, but reaffirmed that he did not ask anyone to lie about or cover up the affair.

[[Kenneth Starr]], the special prosecutor in the case, pursued the matter.

Clinton became the second sitting president to be impeached by the US House of Representatives. During his second term Clinton was accused of perjury in connection to the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. The US Senate voted to acquit him. He later lost his law license in Arkansas.

It was during this scandal that Clinton famously stated: "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/21/newsid_2525000/2525339.stm</ref>.

== After the Presidency ==

Clinton has spent much of time since leaving office working for charitable causes such as support and fund-raising for the victims of AIDS and the Asian tsunami. In the case of the Indonesian tsunami, he teamed with former president [[George H.W. Bush]] to raise money for relief efforts.

Bill Clinton's wife, [[Hillary_Rodham_Clinton|Hillary Clinton]], was elected Senator to New York in 2000. Reelected in 2006, she is now seeking the Democratic nomination for president in 2008.

== References ==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Clinton, Bill}}
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]

Talk:Jimmy Carter

2007-06-29T23:29:03Z

JamesBenjamin: Color

Is this the same president who got an award for brokering a deal with North Korea which they went on to break secretly? It had something to do with crediting him for ensuring that NK would '''not''' do something with nukes that would endanger the world, i.e., he got credit for preventing them. But we found out years later that they did the thing he got credit for preventing. Lemme google that . . . --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:52, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

*Carter met with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il in Pyongyang and returned to America waving a piece of paper and declaring peace in our time. Kim, according to Carter, had agreed to stop his nuclear weapons development.
*The Clinton appeasement program for North Korea included hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, food, oil and even a nuclear reactor. However, the agreement was flawed and lacked even the most informal means of verification.
*In return, Kim elected to starve his people while using the American aid to build uranium bombs. The lowest estimate is that Kim starved to death over 1 million of his own people, even with the U.S. aid program. [http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/12/164726.shtml]

Yes, just what I thought. Now let's see if I can find a more credible sources than Ruddy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:54, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

*Carter had the U.S. Pentagon tell the Shah's top military commanders – about 150 of them – to acquiesce to the Ayatollah and not fight him.
*The Shah's military listened to Carter. All of them were murdered in one of the Ayatollah's first acts. [ibid]

I didn't know about this one. Can anyone else verify this? It has the ring of truth, and I've always considered Carter the worst US president of the 20th century - especially on [[human rights]], but this is not a blog. This is an encyclopedia, and everything must be verifiable and trustworthy. Someone else a bit less emotionally involved than I am should continue this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:57, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

My impression is that Jimmy Carter was and is a conservative. His vilification was due to "Reagan conservatives" justifying Reagan's presidency. Reagan was actually a radical who tried, and in many ways succeeded, in turning back the clock. Carter supported the Vietnam War and is a religious man. His support of the ERA was tepid at best.

I have to take issue with the first line, "He is not only regarded by most Americans across the political spectrum as being the worst president of the 20th century, but he is also considered by many conservatives to be among the worst presidents in the entirety of American history."

That has the ring of the mealy-mouthed 'Some people say..." that is so common among journalists. It's just a vague impression that is not in any way quantified.

Is there a source for this information? Is there a recent survey of people saying who the worst president of the 20th century is? As it is, there's no foundation to this statement.

: I think both Richard Nixon and Warren G. Harding get in line before Carter on the Liberal Bad President List. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 23:41, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Carter's reputation was in big trouble long before Reagan ever took office; let me give a real simple illustration why Jimmy Carter was, and remains roundly considered one of the most ineffective Presidents of late memory. Carter served from 1977 to 1981; in that time, the Democrats controlled ''both'' House & Senate, i.e. there was '''no''' divided government. The number one priority of the Congressional Black Caucus for each and every one of those four years, was passage and signing into law the [[Martin Luther King]] National Holiday. For some reason, Mr. Carter just could not get the job done. There must have been other priorities that prevented President Carter from convincing a majority of members of ''his own party'', this was an important thing to get done during his first term of office. By contrast, Ronald Reagan, and the Republican controlled Senate, had no problem convincing the Democratically controlled House of Representatives to pass this legislation. And history records the facts of this matter, which is illustrative of Jimmy Carter's failed, ineffectual leadership. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:49, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Not going to argue that Carter was a good president; he wasn't. But most polls of historians and the like consistently place Carter towards the bottom of the third quarter or top of the fourth quarter. Harding, Coolidge, Hoover and Nixon tend to score below him for presidents in the 20th Century.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:01, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Republicans discuss this often, of the three Democratic Presidents of recent memory, Johnson, Carter and Clinton, Repubs debate which was the worst. Oddly, the one who got impeached is usually considered the best when considering those three. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:13, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

It's amazing how much time "conservatives" waste on debating someone's "conservative" credentials, as opposed to how effective they were in making the United States a great nation.
:Jimmy Carter made the US a great nation? i think your confusing him with Reagan.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

Not at all. You totally misunderstood my point, which is that the contributions the president made to the greatness of the United States is more important than whether they were liberal or conservative. By my standards, neither Carter nor Reagan were good presidents, although overall Reagan did more harm than Carter. Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, perhaps Wilson, Roosevelt, perhaps Eisenhower, were great presidents.

Exuse me but I think that the best word that describes Carter's Presidency is malaise. Also I don't understand why Coolidge is rated so low. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 17:08, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== UFO sighting ==
I removed the following commentary from the article: "most likely most likely the planet Venus"

I also changed the section title from belief in space aliens to UFO sighting. I am putting notice here in case others want to dispute these changes. Please discuss. Thanks. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 23:09, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

: A lot of UFO sightings do turn out to be a particularly bright view of Venus. It would not be surprising. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:49, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

::Sure, but the article went from accusing Carter of believing in little green men, to an uncited explaination. While plausable, I'd prefer it be sourced, wouldn't you? [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 01:05, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Even if the flying sauce was a remote control hologram flown by the Martian version of [[Paul Wolfowitz]], that language is suitable. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:14, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

According to the 1981 book 'MOre Rumor' it was most likely the planet venus. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 10:53, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

== Color ==

Hey, the frame backround under his picture is red, shouldnt it be blue? I have no idea how to change it...[[User:JamesBenjamin|JamesBenjamin]] 19:29, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:John F. Kennedy

2007-06-29T22:54:16Z

JamesBenjamin:

"crisis" should read "Cuban Missile Crisis", please.

== Not Fair ==
It is not entirely fair to lay the blame of the failure of the Bay of Pigs squarely at JFK's feet. There was a lot of urging from the CIA and the military NOT to go ahead with American military itervention on behalf of the insurgents. Considering the atmosphere of the world at that time, I can't say listening to them was a horrible idea. Regrettable that the operation was botched, but the reasons why it was botched are not 100% of JFK's doing.

And it's quite interesting that the hawks in his administration that urged him NOT to intervene in Bay of Pigs are the ones who the author of this article quite cleverly insinuates are the reason why Kennedy kept us safe through the Cuban Missle Crisis, as if without them Kennedy would have been inept. If you're looking for the slightest reasons to praise the hawks in his administration, even if it is to just lessen JFK's abilities as an individual, you could have made mention of the hawks being the driving force behind not intervening in Bay of Pigs, and thus applauded them for it in the process (when keeping in mind that not risking such a blatant and overt challenge to the USSR that would not have been necesary and risked TERRIBLE reprecussions...). But it looks like the author of this article was too concerned with finding anything to blame on Kennedy, and thus missed their opportunity to render more praise unto the conservative hawks. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:30, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:To add to the Bay of Pigs discussion, the CIA under Eisenhower actually made the plan, it was recomended to Kennedy once he took office. The way this page reads is as though he is 100% totally at fault for everything. I think he was a do-nothing president that is only popular because he was assasinated, but seriously folks, lets calm down the rhetoric. ALSO: I changed the reference about him being the "youngest president". He was the youngest person ever ELECTED president, but Teddy Roosevelt was actually a year or two younger than Kennedy when he took office. I didn't want to re-write the whole section, but I figured I'd throw in a minor correction. [[User:JamesBenjamin|JamesBenjamin]] 18:54, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

John F. Kennedy

2007-06-29T22:49:54Z

JamesBenjamin:

[[Image:John_kennedy.jpg|right|thumb|John F. Kennedy]]

'''John Fitzgerald Kennedy''' '''(May 29, 1917 - November 22, 1963)''' was the 35th and youngest (when elected) president. He died in 1963 when he was assassinated by [[Lee Harvey Oswald]].

Kennedy won the 1960 Presidential election against [[Richard Nixon]] by a thin margin. An important part of the campaign turned out to be the role of television. When Kennedy and Nixon held their presidential debate, those who listened on radio thought that Nixon won, but those who saw it on television thought Kennedy had won. Kennedy, young, tanned, and wearing discrete makeup for the camera, had a better television presence.

Kennedy was responsible for the [[Bay of Pigs]] fiasco, ineptly encouraging the invasion but then pulling back support and even allowing advance notice of the invasion to leak to [[Fidel Castro]]. When a year later the [[Soviet Union]] was building a ballistic missile site in [[Cuba]] that could house nuclear missiles, Kennedy handled the ensuing [[Cuban Missile Crisis]] with the help of hawks in his administration whose conduct, such as putting bombers on alert status, posed a credible threat to Soviets and helped cause them to back down.

Kennedy authorized the de-segregation of Federal housing and proposed the civil rights bill, passed after his assassination. He created the [[Peace Corps]] and also pledged to put a man on the moon before the end of the 1960s, a pledge that was later fulfilled after his death.

Kennedy cut taxes and appointed [[Byron White]] to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]], who consistently ruled with [[conservatives]] on social issues such as [[abortion]] and [[homosexuality]].

Kennedy was a notorious womanizer, which the media failed to report on until well after his death.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Kennedy, John F.}}
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]

Woodrow Wilson

2007-06-29T22:32:38Z

JamesBenjamin: Added "* He is the only president to have a PhD." which was in his successors article, for some silly reason.

Talk:Warren G. Harding

2007-06-29T22:30:10Z

JamesBenjamin: PHD

== This Is A Suspect Article ==

'''Would someone be so kind as to fact-check it, including all citations, and repair it? It is mainly the work of the deceitful (now blocked) Liberal Sysop Richard. There are many factual inaccuracies. Thanks!''' --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:26, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:For the record—and since I’m sick of seeing “liberal” used to describe any behavior we don’t like—Richard does not describe himself as liberal—in fact in his post about this issue he writes: “I still don't consider myself a "liberal" (except in the classic sense) as I'm no fan of socialism nor do I buy the concept of "economic justice". <ref>Richard’s post [http://linuxintegrators.com/acoliver/blog/2007/03/27/x-0310.html]</ref>. “Liberal” has a meaning, and that meaning is not “anything I don’t like”.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:08, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::It's not ideological; it is an issue of good faith. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:22, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I am not commenting on anything other than the misuse of the word “liberal” by [[User:TK|TerryK]] and others on this site. I’m not commenting here on what Richard did, other people (like you) are making the same points I would make, and, as I see it, the remaining issue (how to make sure this doesn’t happen again) is one the administrative team is going to have to handle and is not something I have any expertise in and so is something I’m not going to say anything about. However, labeling Richard a “liberal” just because his behavior on this site was dishonest is a clear misuse of the word “liberal”—“liberal” does not mean “anyone we don’t like” and using it to mean that is something I find very distasteful and something I can do something about. Let me be clear, I condemn Richard’s actions I am not writing in support of them, I am making one point and one point only—that Richard did something wrong does not make him a “liberal”.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 19:11, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Has nothing to do with being a "liberal", etc. He was a subversive disinformation operative, one of dozens we see daily. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:15, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::I agree, this has nothing to do with Richard being “liberal”—but [[User:TK|TerryK]] seems to disagree. He wrote that this article “ …is mainly the work of the deceitful (now blocked) Liberal Sysop Richard.” Had he not felt the need to ad the word “liberal” I would not have commented, but he did and so I felt the need to respond.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 19:19, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Everything he wrote is accurate. He just left other things out and phrased it in such a way that it comes off as a fawning lovenote to the guy instead of a genuine critique. Which, again, is the whole point. TPTB (and esp. Andy) were all content to let it stand b/c he had the "proper" political viewpoint. Andy even SysOped him b/c of this article. Isn't THAT the issue you should be more concerned about? It's like a doctor just revealed a tumor and you're more concerned about the doctor finding it than finding a cure.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 09:28, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

So, in other words, leaving things out is honest and the mark of a scholar? He boasted in his own blog he added false citations. Talk around it all you like, gentlemen, obsfucate all you like. He and his work are dishonest. Self-admittedly so. Try making this a political debate all you want, but try it on someone who isn't a professional in the field. He joined voluntairly, particpated willingly, all for only one pupose, to play "gothcha". --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:35, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::And how long did you let it stay here? Why didn't you, or Andy, or anyone else check his work? Why, with such a supposedly shoddy article, was Richard made a SysOp? THESE are the things that should be concerning you, not that I found it funny or that he did it in the first place. It never could have happened if there were better controls and a lack of a denied - but painfully obvious - bias towards what passes for conservative thought these days.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:13, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Do I agree this is a bad article? Last time I read it, yes. Did I say anything about the article in my comment? Last time I read it, no. My point was that some people on this site—and you [[User:TK|TerryK]] are one of them – use “liberal” to mean “anything I don’t like”. That is not the meaning of the word “liberal”. Your claim that this article “...is mainly the work of the deceitful (now blocked) Liberal Sysop Richard” is false – the sysop Richard is not a liberal. That was my point. I said nothing about the quality of the article, nothing about the quality of Richard’s edits, nothing about Richard’s moral character, and nothing about anything else in your response. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:03, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

*Well, I apologize, Reginod, when I first read this page, it appeared you were not the only person posting here. My eyes are getting older, so perhaps they fool me now and then. :p And no matter what Richard says, he is not a Conservative, by any honest appraisal of his actions or words. Attacking me, and lumping me in with whoever else is helping on this project is deceitful and dishonest, and dis-proven by my posts. Shame on you. Spend some time fixing the article so it worthy of its topic, rather than just posting your disagreement with me. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:13, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::No you were right, and at first I thought you may not have been addressing me, but then I read your post again “Talk around it all you like, gentlemen, obsfucate all you like.” The key word there being “gentlemen”, plural, and there were only two people, besides you, involved in the discussion at the time—so I assumed you were responding to me and the other person who had commented. I never said that Richard was a conservative – I read his post and based on what he had to say I would call him centrist—there are more than two political positions that a person could hold and “liberal” does not mean “anyone who is not conservative”. You have done exactly what I have said you have done (misused the word “liberal” to mean something totally different from its meaning) and you’ve done it here—but that is all I am saying you have done. Anything I haven’t said, I haven’t said—I’ve said everything I wanted to and nothing more or less, so please do not try to read anything more than that into my words. As far as fixing the article goes, I’m not much of a historian (and most of my historical knowledge is about time periods other than the one President Harding was active during) and I’m working on something else at the moment, but I thought this was a teachable moment so I took some time out to make, what I believe to be, an important point.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

*So, your point would be to object to me or Andy not catching it before? Before what? I did, within a couple of days of first signing up. I have only been "here" for what? Two weeks? It is a red-herring argument to try and shift the blame to others, somehow saying the responsibility for the prank was other than Richard's blame. Please stop doing that. A place this large, no one group of people can keep on top of every article. I had it on my list, along with the other pages I have already edited or created, and since I am already working 60-80 hours per week at what earns me money, this place has to take a back seat. Your other point, if I am focusing properly, is that I am somehow misusing the term "Conservative" and "Liberal", by using them in other than their orthodox, dictionary meaning? I agree. Guilty 100% of doing that. That is the dynamic nature of language. Get used to it. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:04, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
**Reading this article, we see [[User:Richard]] did not do his homework. He made a rather lame partisan attack on Republicans and conservatives, but for all the effort he put in trying to impugn modern Repubs & conservs with obsolete information, he really only embarassed himself as a classic "mindless partisan", i.e. he's a partisan and he doesn't even know what he's partisan about.[[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:16, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
:Since the second point you address is clearly mine, I am going to assume that this is in part directed at me. The first point you respond to is, for the record, not an argument I have ever made—I am not saying that—I wouldn’t even bother to say I’m not saying that except you call the second point “your other point” which suggests that you think the first point was something I also said (maybe you are using “other” in a manner I am not familiar with).
:Your response to my point also leaves something to be desired. Yes, the meaning of words changes – I understand, admit and accept that fact. But, this site is billed around the divide in the modern world between “liberals” and “conservatives”, this means that we – all users of this site – should be especially careful to use these terms in line with their modern meaning. Likewise this site is supposed to be encyclopedic and so users should use the modern meaning of words to make sure that the content is actually accessible. If you do intend to use words to mean anything other than their modern meaning, at the very least, I think you ought to provide a note so that your actual meaning is clear.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:05, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

----

How could this marvellous article have omitted to include a family-friendly description of the zany, madcap antics engaged in by Nan Britton and "Mr. Harding" in the White House coat closet, amongst the galoshes? Note: irony. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:30, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: even wikipedia admits harding was innocent here: "Warren G. Harding was not, directly, personally or otherwise, aware of the scandal. At the time of his death in 1923 he was just beginning to learn of problems deriving from the actions of his appointee". I think you expose your Liberal bias. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 21:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Uh, Nan Britton was associated with a different scandal, not Teapot Dome. She was... how to say this... the Monica Lewinsky of the Roaring Twenties. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::: says harding's critics and the MSM. There is no unbiased source to substantiate that [[User:Richard|Richard]] 21:37, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Ummm....Teapot Dome, anybody? Biggest scandal ever in an administration? --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:31, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

if you haven't noticed, the article is one big stupid joke... [[User:Splark|Splark]] 20:33, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: What makes you say this is a joke?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:39, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::"Mr. Harding's unassailable character was an exemplary example for all Americans" Keep in mind all of his scandals, extramarital affairs, and everything else that was omitted (including his admission to be not mentally up to the job). I think you're being tricked by a liberal smart-aleck. [[User:Splark|Splark]] 20:43, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: And do you have unbiased sources that actually substantiate those claims? This is just like McCarthy, who has been proven right by history. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 21:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: Note that the article is referenced. If you feel other material that is sufficiently factual and ideologically compatible then please add it rather than engaging in ad hominem attacks against my character (calling me a liberal) [[User:Richard|Richard]] 21:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Splark, with all due respect, I think you've been duped by liberal history books. Harding was one of the most conservative presidents and was maligned by liberals because he was conservative. Do you buy everything the media says about other conservatives, such as [[Anita Bryant]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:47, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::With all due respect to you, Aschlafly, Warren Harding did say "I am not fit for this office and never should have been here." (http://www.trivia-library.com/b/u-s-president-warren-g-harding-quotes-from-and-about-harding.htm). Also, the article does not even include the Teapot Dome scandal, where Harding secretly leased naval oil-reserve lands to private companies. (http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0380900-00). While the media is quite biased against Harding, the article should at least include the Teapot Dome scandal and his two extramarital affairs (http://americanhistory.about.com/od/warrengharding/p/pHarding.htm) I know this site is biased, but the facts remain. -[[User:Splark|Splark]] 22:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I agree that the teapot dome issue should be handled. I'm researching it. Patience, the article didn't exist until today. Granted the teapot issue looks rather small compared to whitewater or other incidents and seems more appropriate for an article on the secretary of the interior than Mr. Harding, but it did bother him and happened on his watch so it should be at least mentioned. As for the quote, I've no idea where, when or if he actually said that. The affairs cannot be substantiated even wikipedia treats them skeptically and Britton seems to be a scurrilous character. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Harding#Extramarital_affairs). Let's fill out the article but not be mislead by period and later liberal biases and innuendo. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 22:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: Also, we have a rule against gossip here. It's a distraction at best and misleading and destructive at worst. Truth is often impossible to determine and relevancy is often dubious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Ahh I removed the death speculation. Probably qualifies. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 02:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

= League of Nations =

I disagree with the removal of the league of nations paragraph. It is true that the senate did not ratify the treaty under Wilson but part of the Harding landslide was that he promised to keep us out and the American people rejected Wilson's internationalist policies. In context of the presidency Harding was a key figure in keeping us out of the League. Had we avoided the Truman period we might have dodged the United Nations bullet as well. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 22:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:I disagree. The Senate was already on record as opposing the League. Harding's assumption of the Presidency did nothing to enhance or reduce that. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 23:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Avoiding the League had nothing to do with not entering the Spanish Revolution or the beginnings of WW2, especially WW2 since the League was for all intents defunct by 1939. Even had we joined, we'd have avoided either conflict. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 23:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: One of the reasons that the league went defunct was America refused to join it. Obviously it would have lasted longer and we'd have been involved in many conflicts sooner had we gotten involved. The United Nations proves that. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 23:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::You are making an assumption that cannot be supported by the facts. US involvement in the League wouldn't have led to involvement in Spain. Neither France nor the UK got heavily involved though both were League members. One of the two countries that did (Germany) left the League.

::And the WW2 contention is just not correct. By war's beginning the league was a joke. The war began due to occurences outside the League's influence. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 23:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: Gentlemen the fact is that the League was a joke because the most important nation, whose (former) leader proposed it, stayed out of it. Without the US, it was a European talking shop like the UN is today when not backed by US force (the real tea dome scandal). You can claim up and down that not joining the league didn't keep us out of wars that were not in our interest but history and the facts simply don't support you. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 23:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Richard, you can't claim a negative. You cannot prove that staying out of the League kept us out of Spain and the beginning of WW2. So, for that reason alone, you can't rightly add it here. It's not factually accurate. To be frank, its a ridiculous assertion.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:04, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Fine we can leave it out. I think you're pushing your liberal agenda a bit far but I insist we DO include that he helped continue to keep us out and I added a reference TO that effect. We'll leave it to the reader's imagination the negative effects that would have come to pass if we had joined that unholy "supergovernment" as Harding referred to it. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 01:17, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Richard, I think the current paragraph is fine. And while you'll continue to deny it, I think this entry is one of the finest pieces of satire I've ever read. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 07:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

On big failure of the League of Nations was the inability to deal with the problem of "foreign national volunteers" entering Spain to engage in belligerency. A "foreign national volunteer" in 1936-38 would be akin to an "unlawful combatant" today. The discussion of "unlawful combatants" today always centers on the Geneva Convention of 1949, which had both the Spanish Civil War & WWII in perspective, but the problem in the 1936-38 period was persons from non-belligerent member states, like the US, UK, France, Netherlands, etc., crossing international boundaries to engage in an armed conflict within a League of Nations member state, not unlike Eygptians, Saudis, etc., crossing into Iraq to engage in active belligerency against coalition forces or the current iraq government.

Where the problem arises, is when these private combatant volunteers from a neutral (or even allied) state return home for R&R, and then go back into the zone of belligerncy, because then Spain, or Iraq today, can accuse the foreign government of harboring belligents engaged in actively trying to overthrow the legitimate government where the belligerncy is taking place. Hence what is possible is, "foreign national volunteers" or "unlawful combatants", whichever term you wish to use, can actually draw their native country into a war that the citizens and government of their native country have no interest in being invloved in (something like this scenario occurred in 1970 when the territory of Cambodia was being used to launch attacks against the government of South Vietnam). In my view, the League never saw this as a possiblity when it was created, failed to deal with it when it happened in the late 1930s, and is one of the major causes of the failure of the League. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:28, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== Teapot ==

I added a section on the Teapot that puts most of the blame on Fall (where it belongs). I hope I wasn't too unfair to Robert M. LaFollette (Sr). Also do you think it is inappropriate to mention the innuendo around Harding's death and its possible connection to Teapot? I tried to balance that out by making it clear the rumors were instantiated, but the fact is that his death did cause loads of speculation. I felt it should be treated. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 23:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==What do you think of this?==
Too much of a hatchet job? Or a reasonable mainstream appraisal? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Frederick Lewis Allen wrote in 1931 that
:Under his imposing exterior he was just a common small-town man, an "average sensual man," the sort of man who likes nothing better in the world than to be with the old bunch when they gather at Joe's place for an all-Saturday-night session, with waistcoats unbuttoned and cigars between their teeth and an ample supply of bottles at hand.... Even making allowance for the refraction of Harding's personality through that of Nan Britton, [in her book] one sees with deadly clarify the essential ordinariness of the man, the commonness of his "Gee, dearie" and "Say, you darling," his being swindled out of a hundred dollars by card sharpers on a train ride... after he had reached the White House, the rowdies of the Ohio gang were fundamentally his sort.<ref name=allen>Allen, Frederick Lewis (1931), ''Only Yesterday,'' ch. VI, "Harding and the Scandals"</ref>

::What needs to be noted is the conservativism of Harding's day consisted of these two things: [[isolationism]] and [[protectionism]]. This is what got him elected, and this is what he stood for. Today, both these concepts have been entirely rejected by closed minded stuffed-shirt conservatives who are unwilling to change. The Republican Party has repudiated these ideas. Now, isolationism and protectionsim still exist in America, a few Republicans & conservatives like Buchanan, or Ross Perot, or Socialists like [[Richard Gebphardt]] embrace protectionism; isolationism is the dominant view among the so-called "liberal left" anti-war movement. But the dominant "conservative" attitudes of Harding's era bare scant resemblance to the dominant conservative views of today.

:::Oh, goodness, I didn't want to get into the let's-boost-Harding/let's-bash-Harding thing. I was just thinking we could use something or other about what the man's personality was like. Taylor writing in 1931 would have been close enough to have been in the milieu and distant enough to have some objectivity. In case it isn't clear I'd like to put this in the article, but I wanted to get some talk about it first. I know that Frederick Lewis Allen "Only Yesterday" is famous and frequently referred to (and a very good read) but I don't know Allen's own politics. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Hmmm.... "Frederick Lewis Allen is best known as the sharp-eyed editor of Harper's magazine. Through Harper's--and the several books and articles he wrote--Allen both chronicled and shaped American journalism in the twentieth century.... Sam Riley, in an article for Dictionary of Literary Biography, suggested, "Allen might be described as a New England, Ivy League gentleman editor." (Contemporary Authors Online) Doesn't sound grotesquely liberal or conservative to me... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:50, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Well this is an important article in showing how the history of conservativism has evolved; when we see that he (1) did not want entaglements in foreign wars, (2) was anti-free trade, and (3) carried on extra-materal affairs in the White House, he doesn't look much like what we'd call a conservative at all. In fact, he looks much the opposite. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:55, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

: Warren G. Harding picked 4 conservative justices to the Supreme Court. His record was better than that of Reagan, Bush I or Bush II. Harding also kept us out of the League of Nations; limited immigration; and embraced free enterprise. Harding picked Coolidge, who succeeded him. Harding's record is pretty strong. FYI, I wrote the stuff about the Court in this entry, not "Richard".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:34, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::I put it the Court stuff back in. But you would agree that isolationism & protectionism, while still prevelent, has been pretty much abandoned by the GOP? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

In pointing to his "record" you are speaking to the number of appointments, not the quality of them, right? Let's take care, in undoing bias, we don't try to dress Harding up as a silk purse, eh? He was pretty clueless, and left most of what is attributed to him, to others to actually decide. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:03, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

: These terms "isolationism" and "protectionism" are a bit pejorative. Conservatives would say they are simply adhering to the wisdom of George Washington (e.g., Farewell Address) and other Founders. Big business Republicans oppose these things, but just today economist Alan Blinder (about whom we need an entry) reversed his position on "free trade."

: More generally, I think much of this content page is accurate. "Richard" may be a phony, but many of these statements (including my own) are true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::The Court appointments were true economic conservatives, resisting the expansion of federal power & spending. There is a tie in here with McCarthy, CPUSA, & Venona actually; [[Agricultural Adjustment Administration]] was one of the first New Deal programs declared unconstitutional and was riddled with Communists from day one (1933). [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:18, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

*Rob, one needs to be careful of reading too much into history books. The facts are the facts, but assigning motivations are iffy at best. As I am sure Andy can tell you, rarely do politicians, and their appointees look to the future about anything, or have much concept of their actions impacting the future, for good or bad, when they are making political appointments. Connections made to things down the road are suspect, because later events might happen because "X" appointed "Y", it is almost always happenstance, sorry to report. I agree, Andy, the ariticle, sans the suspect citations, and the mostly gossipy account, short account of his death, was mainly ok. I didn't have a problem with your additions, and am in process of reorganizing many things, adding the bullets, etc. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:44, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::What happened in the AAA (Agricultural Adjustment Administration) is particularly revealing. It was through the Dept of Agriculture that [[CPUSA]] members first entered government employment in [[New Deal]] programs-- as early as 1933, i.e. even before reestablishment of diplomatic relations with the USSR. By revealing I mean this, agricultural set asides were one of the first New Deal "releif" efforts, i.e. paying a landowner ''not'' to farm his land. [[Sharecropper]]s in Mississippi who did not own the land '''''where''''' employed and farming from the `1929-1933 period. Only ''after'' passage of "relief" efforts, i.e. intended to "help" the poor, the oppressed, the downtrodden, did poor B lack sharcroppers become homeless and unemployment as a result of passage of the agricultural set asides in the AAA Act.

::This wasn't just an unitended consequence; this was active subversion to build a political coalition. And the poor sharecroppers oppressors cloaked themselves as their saviors. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:59, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

*Well, I take it you actually believe that, however the actuality of it was they had no idea of the good political idea they had hit on. Later, of course, deeper Democratic Party thinkers (mainly in Congress) saw the advantage of the people suckling on the government teet forever. Most of those thinking there was some deep-seated conspiracy, on the part of the CPUSA or the Kremlin, were proven wrong by Nixon, among others. Most were merely idealists/idiots. Not to say there weren't some dedicated Communists and anarchists worming their way in too. Not to say Moscow didn't, belatedly see the need to mine information from their sympathizer's. Politically, it wasn't until FDR was, for the most part dead, did the Democratic strategists begin to realize that with a bit of manipulation, the underclass could be exploited into a consistency they could use. Those guys weren't Communists, just opportunists. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:37, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
**Moynihan Commission Report reads,
::''The first fact is that a significant Communist conspiracy was in place in Washington, New York, and Los Angeles'' [http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/moynihan/appa6.html]

::''By 1950, when it was learned that Weisband had revealed the existence of the VENONA project to the Soviets, the United States Government possessed information which the American public desperately needed to know: proof that there had been a serious attack on American security by the Soviet Union, with considerable assistance from what was, indeed, an “enemy within.” The fact that we knew this was now known to, or sufficiently surmised by, the Soviet authorities. Only the American public was denied this information.'' [http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/moynihan/appa7.html] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:00, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

*Well it is an act of relativism to say the espionage for getting the bomb can be equated with the efforts to create a massive welfare-addicted underclass to subvert politically for Democratic votes. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:17, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
**The X-line, or the group working on stealing nuke know-how in the 40s was only one program. CPUSA underground apparatus operated as an arm of the KGB for 27 years, from 1921 (prior to restoring diplomatic relations) to 1948, had 800 to 1200 people involved, and as Hayden Peake, the curator of CIA’s Historical Intelligence Collection said, "No modern government was more thoroughly penetrated." [http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/review/2000/summer/re2-su0.htm]

So penetrating a more-or-less free and open society, yeilded them agricultural secrets? How does one compare penetration of a police state vis-a-vi a democracy? I'm not arguing the point we were penetrated, I just note a somewhat alarmist or vindicative tone in the writing. The government being compromised isn't a small thing, but historically speaking, for what good it did them...I have been in the archives, and to imply Harding was hands-on and knowledgeable about much, well, one might as well claim Reagan actually worked 16 hour days on policy. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
:[[Alger Hiss]] started out in the Agriculture Dept. That got their foot in the door. And like I showed about sharecroppers, the New Deal actually created hardship & sufferring among societies most vulnerable. And who was a "liberal" who touted the plight of sharcroppers? why [[Priscilla Hiss]], no less. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:36, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

*Well, isn't it too bad Conservatives, back then, weren't concerned about how those poor souls were living? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:01, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:We have a classic illustration of alleged "liberal compassion" here; first New Deal programs destroyed their jobs & threw them out in the street, then more New Deal programs were invented to deal with the dislocation their "relief efforts" created. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:31, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

*Well, don't hate the playa, hate the game, lol. It was a brilliant political move, albeit sinister and destructive, and only now seeing signs of it being undone. Reagan couldn't have in 20 years, dismantled it, and more importantly weaned people off of entitlements. They are here to stay. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:03, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

==References==
<references/>

== PHD ==

I removed "* He is the only president to have a PhD." as it is false, that was Wilson.[[User:JamesBenjamin|JamesBenjamin]] 18:30, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Warren G. Harding

2007-06-29T22:29:00Z

JamesBenjamin: removed "* He is the only president to have a PhD.", that was Wilson

{| class="infobox bordered" style="float: right; margin: 0 0 0.5em 0.5em; text-align: left; font-size: 85%; margin-left:5px" border=1 align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="250"
|-
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:Jgftyr.jpg|200px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; font-size: 120%; height: 30px; background: purple no-repeat scroll top left;"|Warren G. Harding 
29th President of the United States
|-
|'''Born'''
|November 2, 1865
|-
|'''Died'''
|August 2, 1923
|-
|'''Term'''
|1921-1923
|-
|'''Political party'''
|Republican
|-
|'''Vice President'''
|[[Calvin Coolidge]]
|-
|'''Preceded by'''
|[[Woodrow Wilson]]
|-
|'''Succeeded by'''
|[[Calvin Coolidge]]
|-
|}

'''Warren G. (Gamaliel) Harding''' (November 2, 1865 - August 2, 1923) was an Ohio Senator and the 29th President of the [[United States of America]]. After the [[First World War]], his presidency was marked as a "return to normalcy". Mr. Harding and his running mate Calvin Coolidge were elected by a large majority over James Cox and [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], in large part because of the American people's rejection of the internationalist policies of former President Woodrow Wilson, particularly the League of Nations. <ref>http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=atb037b09&templatename=/article/article.html</ref>

Harding's undeviating Republicanism and vibrant speaking voice, plus his willingness to let the machine bosses set policies, led him far in Ohio politics. He served in the state Senate and as Lieutenant Governor, and unsuccessfully ran for Governor. He delivered the nominating address for President Taft at the 1912 Republican Convention. In 1914 he was elected to the Senate. An Ohio admirer, Harry Daugherty, began to promote Harding for the 1920 Republican nomination because, he later explained, "He looked like a President." [http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/wh29.html]

== Key Accomplishments ==

*Eliminated wartime controls
*Slashed taxes
*Established a Federal budget system,
*Restored the high protective tariff
*Imposed tight limitations upon immigration

=== Immigration Control ===

Mr. Harding signed into law the [[Emergency Quota Act]]<ref>http://tucnak.fsv.cuni.cz/~calda/Documents/1920s/QuotaAct1918.html</ref> which sought to control immigration following World War I and preserve the distinctive American culture by ensuring the majority of immigrants came from the historically compatible cultures of Northern Europe. This law aimed to bring wages of hard working Americans under control by limiting immigration to 3% of the 1910 census. It was followed on by a similar act in 1924, after Mr. Harding's death.<ref>http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/Race/quota_acts.htm</ref>

=== Tulsa Race Riot ===

Harding sought to calm race relations during the [[Tulsa Race Riot]] and events that followed. His wise words helped to calm the nation especially in the Tulsa area at this time of disturbance. His press secretary also sent a telegram to the [[National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]] offering the president's support. <ref>http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3812/is_199911/ai_n8854233</ref>

=== Justice ===

Harding pardoned the [[socialist]] Eugene Debs who was imprisoned during World War I for opposing the war. Despite their political differences, Harding was cordial to him and met with him in the White House, "I have heard so damned much about you, Mr Debs, that I am very glad to meet you personally."<ref>http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/vodebs.htm</ref>

Harding defined the Supreme Court for two decades, appointing four solidly [[conservative]] justices. Harding's appointments included former President [[William Howard Taft]] to be Chief Justice (1921), [[George Sutherland]] (1922), [[Pierce Butler]] (1923) and [[Edward Terry Sanford]] (1923). Two of these justices (Taft and Sanford) served until 1930. The other two (Sutherland and Butler) served until the late 1930s and stood up to the [[liberal]] policies of President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]].

In particular, Sutherland and Butler were the core of the conservative [[Four Horsemen]] who invalidated key aspects of the [[New Deal]] and drove President Roosevelt to propose his [[court-packing scheme]], which caused him to lose his credibility with Congress and the public.

In selecting Pierce for the bench, Harding broke with tradition by picking a conservative Democrat even though Harding was a Republican.

=== Fiscal ===

The Bureau of the Budget was created during Harding's tenure. Harding attempted to restrain the federal budget and reduce expenses on wartime armaments. This stimulated the private economy and lead to a period of prosperity experienced in the United States during the 1920s known as the ''Roaring 20s''. Shortly after taking office, Harding also successfully passed promotion of US Agriculture, repeal of the wartime "excess profits" tax and reduction of rail rates.<ref>http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0193620-00</ref> Due in part to Mr. Harding's conservative economic policies, the US experienced a period of profound economic growth in the early 1920s that continued through most of the decade.

=== Military ===

Harding presided over modernization of the U.S. forces including the addition of the experimental [[aircraft carrier]] Langley and the T-2 [[submarine]], as well as the creation of a merchant marine which was critical in early US involvement in WWII via the [[Lend-Lease Act]].<ref>http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0193620-00</ref>

=== Diplomatic ===

Harding avoided entangling alliances that lead to war and defended US interests. Mr. Harding outlined his policy in his inaugural address: "...every commitment must be made in the exercise of our national sovereignty. Since freedom impelled, and independence inspired, and nationality exalted, a world supergovernment is contrary to everything we cherish and can have no sanction by our Republic. This is not selfishness, it is sanctity. It is not aloofness, it is security. It is not suspicion of others, it is patriotic adherence to the things which made us what we are." <ref>http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/print.php?pid=25833</ref>

Supported by his conservative colleagues in congress as well as the American people, Harding succeeded at continuing to keep the United States out of the League of Nations. <ref>http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=atb037b09&templatename=/article/article.html</ref>

=== Labor issues ===
Mr. Harding's administration helped bring about the 40-hour work week which restricted the economic output of the US and restricted small, medium and large businesses alike.

=== Teapot Dome incident ===
Mr. Harding, in a quest to help re-privatize land taken from the American people and industry by their own government, appointed Senator Albert B. Fall of New Mexico as his Secretary of the Interior. Falls misappropriated this effort for his own gain in an abuse of the public trust. Democrats in congress, lead by Senator [[Thomas J. Walsh]] and Republican Senator [[Robert M. LaFollette]] (a former progressive), began an investigation with the support of the [[conservationist]] interests that backed them. They found that Fall had used his privatization efforts to benefit himself to the tune of over $400,000. Mr. Fall also had entangled other businessmen and politicians into his wrongdoing which lead to other indictments of both Democrats and Republicans and continued into the Coolidge administration. Mr. Harding did not know about these dealings until shortly before his death. In later years the petroleum reserves would prove to be less valuable than initially overestimated by the government. <ref>http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0380900-00</ref>

==="The President's Daughter"===
In 1928, Nan Britton published a book entitled "The President's Daughter" claiming that she and Harding had been lovers and had conceived a child in 1919. According to her, the affair continued for six years, and the lovers' meeting-places included a coat closet in the executive offices of the White House.<ref name=taylor>Taylor, Frederick Lewis (1931), ''Only Yesterday,'' ch. VI, "Harding and the Scandals"</ref>

== Death ==

The death of President Warren Harding is one of those enduring mysteries that will probably never be solved.

Shaken by the talk of corruption among the friends he had appointed to office, Warren and Florence Harding began a tour on June 20, 1923 of the West and Alaska. He hoped to get out and meet people, to shake hands and explain his policies. Although suffering from high blood pressure and an enlarged heart, he seemed to enjoy himself and the food -- especially the seafood in Alaska. On his return journey, he became ill with what was then attributed to food poisoning. The Presidential train rushed to [[San Francisco]], where his condition worsened. He developed pneumonia, and complicated by his heart ailment, died suddenly on August 23, he suffered a [[heart attack]] in the evening, while his wife was reading to him. He died quietly and instantaneously.

Wild speculation spread when Mrs. Harding refused (on the advice of their Doctor) to allow an autopsy. [[California]], where Harding's death took place, did not yet have a mandatory autopsy law. Several rumors started. One said that Harding, already depressed and facing impeachment, committed suicide. Another said that Mrs. Harding poisoned him, to prevent him from suffering the humiliation of impeachment and removal from office, or possibly as revenge for his cheating on her. A sensationalist book published in 1930 detailed the allegations against her. Harding left the bulk of his estate, valued at $850,000, to his wife.
[http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=a2012900-h][http://www.suite.com/article.cfm/presidents_and_first_ladies/47901/3]

== Criticism ==

Harding today has come under criticism for [[protectionist]] policies--restrictions on [[free trade]]--which resulted in the collapse of international trade and is widely considered the chief cause of the worldwide [[Great Depression]] that occurred later in the decade and throughout the 1930s.

== Trivia ==

* Out of all of the Presidents of the U.S. he had the largest feet.
* He was the first president to visit Alaska.
* He was the first President to speak on the radio and the first to have a radio in the White House.
* Harding and [[John F. Kennedy]] are the only two sitting United States Senators elected to the Presidency in the 20th century.

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Harding, Warren G.}}
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]

Grover Cleveland

2007-06-29T22:19:22Z

JamesBenjamin: removed 'as a result of the Democratic failure to win the American Civil War.'

{| class="infobox bordered" style="float: right; margin: 0 0 0.5em 0.5em; text-align: left; font-size: 85%; margin-left:5px" border=1 align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="250"
|-
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:Grover cleveland.jpg|180px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; font-size: 120%; height: 30px; background: purple no-repeat scroll top left;"|Grover Cleveland 
22nd President of the United States
|-
|'''Born'''
|March 18, 1837
|-
|'''Died'''
|June 24, 1908
|-
|'''Term'''
|1885-1889
|-
|'''Political party'''
|Democratic
|-
|'''Vice President'''
|[[Thomas A. Hendricks]] (1885) None (1885-1889)
|-
|'''Preceded by'''
|[[Chester A. Arthur]]
|-
|'''Succeeded by'''
|[[Benjamin Harrison]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; font-size: 120%; height: 30px; background: purple no-repeat scroll top left;"|24th President of the United States
|-
|'''Term'''
|1893-1897
|-
|'''Vice President'''
|[[Adlai E. Stevenson]]
|-
|'''Preceded by'''
|[[Benjamin Harrison]]
|-
|'''Succeeded by'''
|[[William McKinley]]
|-
|}

'''Grover Steven Cleveland''' was the 22nd and 24th [[President of the United States]], and was unique in that he was the only President to serve two non-consecutive terms. He was the only [[Democrat]] elected to the Presidency in the Republican dynasty that lasted from 1850s to when [[Woodrow Wilson]] was President. Many contemporary politicians praise him for his commitment to [[conservative]] thinking. Much like modern conservatives he opposed imperialism, corruption, patronage, corporate subsidies, taxes and inflation.

Cleveland was famous for busting the union train saboteurs during the Pullman strike of 1894 which angered the unions. He was also a big supporter of gold and a sworn enemy of silver. Even though he was the sitting President, unions and silver people kicked him out of the party, eventually, signifying a drastic shift of the Democrats to the left and leading to the nomination of William Jennings Bryan in 1896.

==Early Days==

Cleveland was born in Baldwell, New Jersey on March 18, 1837. <ref>[[Encyclopedia of Presidents, Grover Cleveland]], by Zachary Kent, Children's Press, 1988.</ref> He had five brothers and four sisters. His father was a [[Presbyterian]] clergyman, and moved around a lot. His second brother was hanged for murder in Utah in 1882.

He avoided the draft in the Civil War by hiring somebody else to take his place.

He graduated from Princeton and became a lawyer in [[Buffalo]], he became very noted in many ways. After being a lawyer, he was elected sheriff of [[Erie]] in 1870 and hung many people while in office personally. He was a strong supporter of the Death Penalty.

He was a big friend of [[Teddy Roosevelt]]. When he was 40 he ran for Mayor of Buffalo and won. Many people praised his honesty and he was very popular. In 1882, he was elected Governor.

==As President==
Both Democrats and Republicans voted for Cleveland for President because his opponent was corrupt.

A key part in the campaign was because his opponent had nothing to use on him, he would shout about Cleveland "Ma, Ma, where's my Pa?", because Cleveland had an illegitimate daughter.

When Cleveland won the election his opponents shouted, "Ma, Ma, where's my Pa? Gone to the White House! Ha Ha Ha!"

===Personal life===
Grover Cleveland in June 1886 was married to Frances Folsom Cleveland in the [[white hosue]]. This was the second President married in office, and also married in the White House itself. Some were offended that Celveland was marrying somebody who was 21 years old and his legal guardian too. The Clevelands had many children while in office.

===Actions as President===
Cleveland voted against many spending bills and Government ideas, making him the first modern [[Conservative]]. He vetoed a bill to give $10,000 to distribute seed grain among drought-stricken farmers in Texas, and said: "Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character...." He also blocked funding to Civil War veterans, which some said was good but some said went too far. Cleveland used the veto a lot but said he did not like Presidential power and thought the best thing he could do was to stop congress from doing bad things.

In 1886 Geronimo was captured by Grover Cleveland, ending the Indian wars.

The same year in October Cleveland finished the [[Statue of Liberty]] in [[New York]] and read its dedication in fluent French, as a tribute to its creator, Jean Renoir.

Critics criticizing Cleveland criticize him for signing the Interstate Commerce Act this term, the first critical attempt at Federal regulation.

===Against Tarrifs===
In 1887 Cleveland began to battle the tariff. Unlike today [[Republicans]] claimed a high tariff made for high wages, high profits, and fast economic expansion. Cleveland was not able to kill the tariff, and was defeated in 1888 because of it.

===Military Buildup===
A very conservative man, Cleveland did not think the United States should invade another country for any reason. However, Cleveland also was in favor of having a strong national defense, and built up the U.S. navy to a huge extent. [[Teddy Roosevelt]] was his secretary of the Navy.

==1888 campaign==
Cleveland lost in 1888 to Republican [[Benjamin Harrison|Benjamin Harrison]], one of the few times the Republican was less conservative than the Democrat. Harrison won the Electoral College by a 204-197 margin, but Cleveland won more votes. This was the last election where this happened.

==2nd Presidency==
Cleveland campaigned to reduce the tariff and stopping the silver people which had lessened the gold reserves of the U.S. Treasury. Cleveland became the only person ever elected president twice when he was elected again in 1892.

===As President===
Like [[George W. Bush]], Cleveland was beset by a stock market crash shortly after becoming president. He successfully navigated the country out of that crisis.

1884 was the year of the famous Pullman strike in Chicago, where workers tried to stop delivering the mail. He sent the army to Chicago to battle the unionizers, saying that "If it takes the entire army and navy of the United States to deliver a postcard in Chicago that card will be delivered."

==Second Tarriff War==
Again he tried to kill the tariff in 1893. The "Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act" was very good at first, but when it went through the Senate it became very bad and filled with loopholes. However, the bill eventually was passed and the tarrif was partially killed, but not enough so that Cleveland refused to sign the bill.

Liberals took over the Democrats in 1896 and with the help of Populist firebrand William Jennings Bryan tried to end the use of gold and protectionism. Jennings lost the Presidency in 1896 and 1900, but in 1904 conservatives and Cleveland came back, and nominated successful candidate (although he did not win because of the strong candidacy of Theodore Roosevelt) Alton Parker.

==Military==
Cleveland was good at pushing around the English without evoking war, and did a lot of stuff with the power of his Navy, which he continued to build. This Navy was so strong it helped to bring about a quick American victory in the [[Spanish-American war]] in 1898 when Cleveland was out of office.

At first Cleveland did not support the revolutionaries in Hawaii who in 1894 overthrew the queen and established a Democracy. In fact, he tried to discredit their actions via the controversial Blount Report issued by [[James Henderson Blount]] under his direction. Later, however, he supported the revolutionaries when the Queen demanded the death of every single one.

===Death and Later Life===

Cleveland, nicknamed 'the Growler', retired to [[Princeton]]. There he became enemies with Woodrow Wilson, who was President of the school. Some people wanted him to run again in 1904, but he was too old. Sometimes President President Theodore Roosevelt asked him for advice.

Cleveland died on June 24, 1908 from a heart and kidney disease, with his wife at his side. He is buried in the Princeton Cemetery. <ref> [[Encyclopedia of Presidents]] by Zachary Kent, Chicago Press, 1988. </ref>

==Honors and memorials==
Cleveland has been on many dollar bills, including the $1000 bill and some of the first $50 bills before Andrew Jackson was put on.

He will be on two dollar coins to be released in 2012 like every other president will, except one for each presidency.

==Trivia==

*He is both the 22nd ''and'' the 24th President because this confused people and he had to be proclaimed both presidents so the issue was cleared up.

*The baseball player Grover Cleveland Alexander was named after him.

* A riverboat known as the Cleveland Steamer was named after him.

*Cleveland's grandson is a Presidential impersonator.

*Cleveland's granddaughter Foot is a philosopher at Oxford.

*Many people said Cleveland was harsh to the poor, but he just favored personal accountability.

*Cleveland was the only police officer to ever become president.

* Grover Cleveland's last words were "I have tried so hard to do right."

==References==
*[http://www.usa-presidents.info/speeches/hawaii.html President Cleveland Message about Hawaii December 18, 1893] - Cleveland's message where he tried to discredit the Hawaiian Revolution. It was contradicted by the Congressionally issued Morgan Report in 1894.

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Cleveland, Grover}}
[[Category:Mayors]]
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]
[[Category:State governors of the United States]]

Talk:Grover Cleveland

2007-06-29T22:18:11Z

JamesBenjamin:

Talk:James K. Polk

2007-06-29T21:55:24Z

JamesBenjamin: Creating page

"Unfortunately, Polk was unable to prevent several thousand Mexicans from entering the country and gaining citizenship when the United States annexed California and New Mexico."

What the? They already lived there! We won the land from Mexico in the war! Not to mention they didn't get citizenship until YEARS later, they were treated the same way indians were. Someone needs to re-write this page with some semblance of fact. Also, "an early supporter of the bush doctrine of pre-emptive war"? really... ? [[User:JamesBenjamin|JamesBenjamin]] 17:55, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Democratic Party

2007-06-29T14:14:52Z

JamesBenjamin: /* Religion section */

== Criticism ==

When President Bush talked about amending the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage, he was opposed by both Democrats and Republicans. The Republicans against it tended to oppose the move based on states' rights. Also, the comment that Democrats "don't care about American families" is opinion, not fact. It should be removed. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 22:05, 9 March 2007 (EST)

This article has the biggest POV I have ever seen, and it offers no adequate description of the Democratic party. Rather, it is a catalog of what conservatives believe that Democrats believe, and it is filled with slanted descriptions ("The Homosexual Agenda") that do not advance the purpose of the article. Perhaps this article should be renamed "List of conservative misinterpretations of the Democratic party." That would immediately solve the problems mentioned above.
--[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:13, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

And yet the [[Republican Party]] page has no such sections on Criticism. At least this site could have the courage to be somewhat fair in their heavily biased presentation of "facts". What a joke. I mean really, is this site trying to look idiotic??

:Yes. (Another edition of simple answers to simple questions.)--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 04:43, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== Some of these? ==

"The Democratic Party, as a political unit, supports abortion, gun control, and organized labor, and the funding of '''some of these''' by taxes."

Seriously. "Some of these?" It's a list of three whole items. Gun control is legislation, unions are a bargaining community of workers, and abortion is a medical procedure. Of these, one needs funding, one can receive incentives, and one either is passed, or is not. If we're going to say "the Democratic party supports taxpayer-funded abortion", well, frankly, we'd be seriously stretching the facts, but we should at least have the courage to be concise and say that. [[User:Zondergard|Zondergard]]

Ummm, why did the post with a link to his poll numbers get taken down. That seems like it goes against your commandments.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 17:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== ic ==

The name of the party is the Democratic Party. If you would like to use a disparaging name for the party, at least choose one that is an adjective. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Pro-Terrorism ==

So, let me get this straight. Being opposed to invading another country means that you support terrorism? That's logically unsound. [[User:Stargrave|Stargrave]] 15:13, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

You're right. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

(A)There are terrorists in Iraq. (B) If you don't fight terrorists you are with them (George W. Bush 2003). C) Dem's voted against fighting terrorists...therefore they are with them!
How's that for logic yankee!

Logical fallacy in the extreme. (A) Was not, as far as I recall, conclusively proven at the time of the vote you cite. Please cite proof that it was, or retract. (B) Is a mans opinion. No less, no more. (B) is the logical fallacy known as a Falsified Dilemma, and your reliance upon it is the fallacy known as Appeal to Authority. Look them up. The given points also conflate the notion of going to war in Iraq with war against terrorists, which is yet another logical fallacy. The whole thing is also an Appeal to Emotion.

Oh, and I'm english. That's an ad hominem attack right there. The opposite of appeal to authority. Basically, you've taken two faulty assumptions, a list of people you disagree with, and used that to make a statement of fact (C). Now, I could care less about your personal opinion of me, and of your (or my) opinion of the party we're discussing, but in something that's supposedly encylopedic, using such logical constructs. I respectfully request you restrain your enthusiasm, and keep to facts, not opinions. [[User:Stargrave|Stargrave]] 11:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Use of AD ==

The article uses AD for no apparent reason; for any given year, AD is automatically assumed unless BC or BCE is used. It also misuses it; it's AD 2007 and not the other way around. I've noticed other articles with a similar usage.

==Liberal Economics==
Liberal economics is not a '''political''' term.
Being an economic liberal means, among other things, little government intrusion into the markets or into the affairs of business. Liberal economics favors balanced budgets over either surpluses '''or''' deficits. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:11, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:Yes; then we can safely say Ronald Reagan was a liberal. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:40, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:: In this classical use of the term Ronald Reagan was an economic liberal. He supported deregulation, free trade, low taxes... That is basically what an "economic liberal" is. It has nothing to do with "Liberal" or "Conservative" and is somewhat of an archaic term. To make matters worse most liberals are not "economic liberals" (they support tariffs and heavy handed forms of central planning to promote "fairness" and "economic justice"). [[User:Richard|Richard]] 01:54, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You've nailed the issue on the head. Ronald Reagan and Boris Yeltsin are two recent examples in history of liberals; as User:Order raised the issue here [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Liberal#Liberal_outside_of_the_US] comparing the American use of the term vs its use outside the US. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:42, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::So if little government intervention in the economy is the liberal stance on economics... does that make socialism the conservative viewpoint? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 23:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Good question. That presupposes liberalism and conservatism are polar opposites. Now, in a purely cycnical sense, one can say that they are, just as sanity and insanity are polar opposites. This is one reason I personally do not subscribe to the spectrum theory.

:::::In economic theory, liberality and prodigality are polar opposites. In American political culture, "liberals" really are for the most part socialists; however in its American use it carries a connotation of "treasonous". This is absent outside of America, were many American allies, Britain or Israel for example, have Socialist governments. Not just Socialist laws or policies, actual Socialist parties in control of government. So if we were to apply that American understanding of the term, i.e. that a "Socialist" is "anti-American", how do we explain close allies being "anti-American"?

:::::Thus, American political vocabulary is all screwed up. And all we can really say for sure is both terms, liberal and socialist, are abused and neither conveys a clear meaning. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:38, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== By Jefferson? ==

Democratic Party founded by Jefferson... Humm. I thought he founded the Democratic-Republican party which was actually referred to by contemporaries as the "Republican" party. The modern Democratic party is the result of several splinter and transitions just like the Republican Party. Arguably both parties are splinters from Jefferson's original party, just the Republican party went through the transition to the Whig party first. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 01:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:You should learn how to place information in a talk page appropriately
::And you should learn to make an account and sign your entries so as not to appear as a cowardly wiseguy. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:56, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Sources ==

Seriously, I thought I would clean up the presentation seeing as I can't in good conscience touch the content... but... GEE WHIZ these sources are awful. A column? Cheesy little websites with election trivia? Pictures of maps? This is the best we could do? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:25, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Remove the polling data, it's worthless ==

Opinion polls are not worthy of mention in an encyclopedia, except maybe to provide background information for a specific political event, such as an election. If someone is reading this article two years from now, do you think the democrat Congress's approval rating in the second week of April 2007 will be relevant to them? Of course not. I'm not going to summarily remove it now, but I suspect most intelligent people will agree with me that it doesn't belong.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:07, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'm more than happy to let it stay...provided we add the same polling data to the Republican Party page and the George W. Bush page. We are supposed to be even-handed here, right?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:23, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::No, we're supposed to be writing educational, clear, and concise articles. Polling data is useless in almost any context. I vote to remove it. Who's with me?--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:34, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I strongly disagree. I'm actually taking a Public Opinion course right now in college, and it's a very important gauge of historical support and for looking back and seeing '''why''' policies were enacted. Plus, once it's no longer April or whatever, we can remove it anyway. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well your public opinion course is probably taught by a bunch of liberals who live and die by opinion polls. And which enacted policies does the poll mentioned in this article help explain? None. My point is, if they are not being used to help understand the political climate surrounding a particular event, they are utterly useless because they're out of date not long after they're released. So unless someone wants to keep this article updated with current polling information until the end of time, there is no reason to have it.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:54, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::The first major expansion to [[Iraq War]], for example, had absolutley nothing whatsoever to do with the war, it's causes, it's course, etc. It was an insertion of extensive polling data [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Iraq_War&diff=prev&oldid=33991] A lenghty edit war ensued, and the material not only is still in the article, it has its own subhead.[http://www.conservapedia.com/Iraq_War#Opinion_polls] Because opinion polls are obviously important to some editors not only in giving meaningful context, but in creating meaningful context, this material should stay in this article and be updated periodically. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:19, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I would agree if the polls were used in any meaningful context in this article, but they aren't. What is the point of saying that according to some research poll, 50% of Americans currently identify with the democrat party? Or that as of 4/18, 53% of Americans support the democrat Congress. Are these numbers rising? Falling? Are they a cause or effect of the 2006 election, or both? There's no context. People can come up with statistics to prove anything. 40% of all people know that.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 15:30, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The point is, polling obviously is important to many contributors. They evidently either make personal judgements based upon polling data, or view it as foundational to any public arguement or discourse. And it's hard to argue with statistics. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:40, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

#1, your ad hominem attack on a professor you don't even know the name of (and whose political views I don't even know, because the course is taught in a nonpartisan manner) has no bearing whatsoever on this debate, and #2, I never said that the data should ever be anything more than temporary and relevant. Do we refuse to list the governors of states because this changes over time? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:21, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:If you think that calling a professor a liberal is an attack, I guess that's your problem. But your ridiculous question about governors just weakens your argument. There is only one governor of a state at any given time, but there are dozens of opinion polls which rarely come up with the same results. So adding opinion polls willy nilly in an encyclopedia article does nothing but detract from its intent of being factual.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 15:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Wait a second. This article includes the slanted weasel words "Democratic national leadership has been accused of being ambivalent about terrorism[11] and insufficiently patriotic" ... they are cited, mind you, but aren't these attacks pretty much the same as opinion polls? Why not link to the copious amounts of info that says Democrats are quite patriotic and serious about terror? Why choose these two extremely biased opinion links? Are these really "facts" worth building an encyclopedia entry around? --[[User:Wennberg|Wennberg]] 22:27, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

===Please===
The sentence: '''Democrats in the US Congress currently have a 53.8% disapproval and a 36.8% approval rating according to the RealClearPolitics Average of several dozens of Congressional Job Approval polls conducted 04/05 - 04/18. [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/archive/?poll_id=18]'''
This is the "Congressional job Approval poll" not the "democratic congress approval poll". [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]
:Hmm, let's see, who controls the US House of Reps & the Senate.... [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:28, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
Fair enough...let us also include the pre-election numbers then '''shall we'''? Based on the Fox News Poll of 10-11-2006 Approve:31% Disapprove:63% Spread:-32% ( from the same source). [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]
:What those numbers show is the misreporting on GW Bush's poll numbers. Both Bush & the Democratic Congress suffer from negative polls, 60/40. IOW, people do not disapprove of Bush personally, people disapprove of the performance of government in general. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:43, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::The poll should be taken out because it doesn't relate specifically to the Democratic Party. The poll is talking about the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. It doesn't matter that the Democrats are in control of Congress. If you were able to get a statistic about just the Democrat approval rating in Congress than you might be able to use it, but as it is right now some of the people in the poll are saying how they don't approve what the Republicans are doing in Congress too. --[[User:Spyder|Spyder]] 13:51, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

==History==

The Treaty of Ghent called for everything to return to the ''Status Quo Antebellum.'' In other words, a draw. The text of the treaty can be read in the ''United States Statutes at Large'' found here <http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=008/llsl008.db&recNum=231> --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 13:50, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:While ''Status Quo Antebellum'' referes to territorial disputesd, it does not refere to other objectives, American complaint of British interference on the high seas. So while Britain failed in it achieving its objectives it can be considered defeated. Whereas the US achieiving its stated aims, it can be considered victorious. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:59, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Most good college level textbooks (Tindall and Shi, and Ayers, Gould, et. al.) have the war as a draw. The two nations agreed to end the conflict, leave prewar boundries in place, and return prisoners. All other questions were to be settled in the future. It would be difficult to see this as anything other than a draw.--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 14:06, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::OK, good points. No problem. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:11, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

To whoever keeps changing this part. Follow the link above and read the treaty.

==Needed citations==
This article needs some citations. I decided to help out by flagging some of the facts that needed to be supported. --[[User:Wennberg|Wennberg]] 22:21, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== Reversions ==

In reply to Johnl's questions for the reverts, the reason is obvious: FDR failed to lead the U.S. out of the depression, instead keeping the U.S. in a depression until WWII. Nor did FDR lead us to victory in WWII. FDR was dying in 1945.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:56, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:He died I think over a month or two before VE day.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 18:56, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::Shouldn't it at least be mentioned that he led the nation during important battles; Normandy, Midway, etc.? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:58, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Looks like I am wrong. He died a little less than a month before VE day. But he was incapacitated a while before then.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 19:00, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

FDR led the US for most fo the war.
:WWII was basically between the Soviet Union & Germany; if anybody "won" the War, it was the Soviet Union. 88% of all casualties in WWII were in the Soviet Union. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:15, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:Further, FDR did not "lead the US out of the Depression"; the [[New Ordeal]] (a euphemism for "New Deal") lasted until 1949. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:58, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Hmmph you know I'm almost afraid to say this, becaunse I'm not the type tostart screaming conspiracy, however it does seem as if this is a blatant attempt to make a DEMOCRAT president seem as if he was completely unimportant and totally irrelevant to the nation during perhaps the biggest and most influential crisis in modern history of which we (theUnited States) were the deciding factor in. Come on... So FDR was a Democrat. So what. To make it seem as if he wasn't all that important (in apositive manner) is a bit silly. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:00, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:True; the planet would indeed be a different place if FDR didn't get elected. Some credit should be given to the courageous souls who supported him, without whom we'd all be eating sauerkraut and sushi right now. Why I just read how [[Strom Thurmond]] supported FDR for a fourth term. [http://www.kevinbaker.info/c_wtm.html] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:11, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

::Even when you're being sarcastic it is nice to see acknowledgment and validation of his positive importance. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:41, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, FDR & the Kennedy's prove the falacy of Marxism; the Roosevelt's and the Kennedy's prove that rich aristocrats who never did a stitch of labor in thier life, that inherited it all by exploiting the poor, actually (a) may have a function and (b) usefulness on this planet. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:17, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
::::You're not dragging me into a loaded "debate." I don't agree with your opinion on what you just mentioned, and I find it all too convenient that you chose two figures I recently did critiques of their articles on here. But I'm not biting. Honestly I'd expect better of a sysop. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:08, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::Huh? Wha...? Please show me where the above analysis of the Roosevelt's, Kennedy's & Marxist theory is in error. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 09:40, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::P.S. No need to make personal comments directed at me over this. I apologize, my faith prohibits me from worshipping human beings; that many Democrats and liberals have looked to the messianic vision of the Roosevelt & Kennedy families for generations is a matter of record. Please, let's not allow anti-religious bigotry into this discussion. Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]]

== Religion section ==

For some reason, Jim Webb of VA is listed in this section as a catholic, he is not. He is protestant of some sort. Someone should put in the name of another prominant catholic senator. [[User:JamesBenjamin|JamesBenjamin]] 10:14, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Democratic Party

2007-06-29T14:13:37Z

JamesBenjamin: Religion section

== Criticism ==

When President Bush talked about amending the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage, he was opposed by both Democrats and Republicans. The Republicans against it tended to oppose the move based on states' rights. Also, the comment that Democrats "don't care about American families" is opinion, not fact. It should be removed. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 22:05, 9 March 2007 (EST)

This article has the biggest POV I have ever seen, and it offers no adequate description of the Democratic party. Rather, it is a catalog of what conservatives believe that Democrats believe, and it is filled with slanted descriptions ("The Homosexual Agenda") that do not advance the purpose of the article. Perhaps this article should be renamed "List of conservative misinterpretations of the Democratic party." That would immediately solve the problems mentioned above.
--[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:13, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

And yet the [[Republican Party]] page has no such sections on Criticism. At least this site could have the courage to be somewhat fair in their heavily biased presentation of "facts". What a joke. I mean really, is this site trying to look idiotic??

:Yes. (Another edition of simple answers to simple questions.)--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 04:43, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== Some of these? ==

"The Democratic Party, as a political unit, supports abortion, gun control, and organized labor, and the funding of '''some of these''' by taxes."

Seriously. "Some of these?" It's a list of three whole items. Gun control is legislation, unions are a bargaining community of workers, and abortion is a medical procedure. Of these, one needs funding, one can receive incentives, and one either is passed, or is not. If we're going to say "the Democratic party supports taxpayer-funded abortion", well, frankly, we'd be seriously stretching the facts, but we should at least have the courage to be concise and say that. [[User:Zondergard|Zondergard]]

Ummm, why did the post with a link to his poll numbers get taken down. That seems like it goes against your commandments.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 17:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== ic ==

The name of the party is the Democratic Party. If you would like to use a disparaging name for the party, at least choose one that is an adjective. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Pro-Terrorism ==

So, let me get this straight. Being opposed to invading another country means that you support terrorism? That's logically unsound. [[User:Stargrave|Stargrave]] 15:13, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

You're right. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

(A)There are terrorists in Iraq. (B) If you don't fight terrorists you are with them (George W. Bush 2003). C) Dem's voted against fighting terrorists...therefore they are with them!
How's that for logic yankee!

Logical fallacy in the extreme. (A) Was not, as far as I recall, conclusively proven at the time of the vote you cite. Please cite proof that it was, or retract. (B) Is a mans opinion. No less, no more. (B) is the logical fallacy known as a Falsified Dilemma, and your reliance upon it is the fallacy known as Appeal to Authority. Look them up. The given points also conflate the notion of going to war in Iraq with war against terrorists, which is yet another logical fallacy. The whole thing is also an Appeal to Emotion.

Oh, and I'm english. That's an ad hominem attack right there. The opposite of appeal to authority. Basically, you've taken two faulty assumptions, a list of people you disagree with, and used that to make a statement of fact (C). Now, I could care less about your personal opinion of me, and of your (or my) opinion of the party we're discussing, but in something that's supposedly encylopedic, using such logical constructs. I respectfully request you restrain your enthusiasm, and keep to facts, not opinions. [[User:Stargrave|Stargrave]] 11:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Use of AD ==

The article uses AD for no apparent reason; for any given year, AD is automatically assumed unless BC or BCE is used. It also misuses it; it's AD 2007 and not the other way around. I've noticed other articles with a similar usage.

==Liberal Economics==
Liberal economics is not a '''political''' term.
Being an economic liberal means, among other things, little government intrusion into the markets or into the affairs of business. Liberal economics favors balanced budgets over either surpluses '''or''' deficits. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:11, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:Yes; then we can safely say Ronald Reagan was a liberal. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:40, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:: In this classical use of the term Ronald Reagan was an economic liberal. He supported deregulation, free trade, low taxes... That is basically what an "economic liberal" is. It has nothing to do with "Liberal" or "Conservative" and is somewhat of an archaic term. To make matters worse most liberals are not "economic liberals" (they support tariffs and heavy handed forms of central planning to promote "fairness" and "economic justice"). [[User:Richard|Richard]] 01:54, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You've nailed the issue on the head. Ronald Reagan and Boris Yeltsin are two recent examples in history of liberals; as User:Order raised the issue here [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Liberal#Liberal_outside_of_the_US] comparing the American use of the term vs its use outside the US. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:42, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::So if little government intervention in the economy is the liberal stance on economics... does that make socialism the conservative viewpoint? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 23:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Good question. That presupposes liberalism and conservatism are polar opposites. Now, in a purely cycnical sense, one can say that they are, just as sanity and insanity are polar opposites. This is one reason I personally do not subscribe to the spectrum theory.

:::::In economic theory, liberality and prodigality are polar opposites. In American political culture, "liberals" really are for the most part socialists; however in its American use it carries a connotation of "treasonous". This is absent outside of America, were many American allies, Britain or Israel for example, have Socialist governments. Not just Socialist laws or policies, actual Socialist parties in control of government. So if we were to apply that American understanding of the term, i.e. that a "Socialist" is "anti-American", how do we explain close allies being "anti-American"?

:::::Thus, American political vocabulary is all screwed up. And all we can really say for sure is both terms, liberal and socialist, are abused and neither conveys a clear meaning. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:38, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== By Jefferson? ==

Democratic Party founded by Jefferson... Humm. I thought he founded the Democratic-Republican party which was actually referred to by contemporaries as the "Republican" party. The modern Democratic party is the result of several splinter and transitions just like the Republican Party. Arguably both parties are splinters from Jefferson's original party, just the Republican party went through the transition to the Whig party first. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 01:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:You should learn how to place information in a talk page appropriately
::And you should learn to make an account and sign your entries so as not to appear as a cowardly wiseguy. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:56, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Sources ==

Seriously, I thought I would clean up the presentation seeing as I can't in good conscience touch the content... but... GEE WHIZ these sources are awful. A column? Cheesy little websites with election trivia? Pictures of maps? This is the best we could do? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:25, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Remove the polling data, it's worthless ==

Opinion polls are not worthy of mention in an encyclopedia, except maybe to provide background information for a specific political event, such as an election. If someone is reading this article two years from now, do you think the democrat Congress's approval rating in the second week of April 2007 will be relevant to them? Of course not. I'm not going to summarily remove it now, but I suspect most intelligent people will agree with me that it doesn't belong.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:07, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'm more than happy to let it stay...provided we add the same polling data to the Republican Party page and the George W. Bush page. We are supposed to be even-handed here, right?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:23, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::No, we're supposed to be writing educational, clear, and concise articles. Polling data is useless in almost any context. I vote to remove it. Who's with me?--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:34, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I strongly disagree. I'm actually taking a Public Opinion course right now in college, and it's a very important gauge of historical support and for looking back and seeing '''why''' policies were enacted. Plus, once it's no longer April or whatever, we can remove it anyway. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well your public opinion course is probably taught by a bunch of liberals who live and die by opinion polls. And which enacted policies does the poll mentioned in this article help explain? None. My point is, if they are not being used to help understand the political climate surrounding a particular event, they are utterly useless because they're out of date not long after they're released. So unless someone wants to keep this article updated with current polling information until the end of time, there is no reason to have it.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:54, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::The first major expansion to [[Iraq War]], for example, had absolutley nothing whatsoever to do with the war, it's causes, it's course, etc. It was an insertion of extensive polling data [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Iraq_War&diff=prev&oldid=33991] A lenghty edit war ensued, and the material not only is still in the article, it has its own subhead.[http://www.conservapedia.com/Iraq_War#Opinion_polls] Because opinion polls are obviously important to some editors not only in giving meaningful context, but in creating meaningful context, this material should stay in this article and be updated periodically. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:19, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I would agree if the polls were used in any meaningful context in this article, but they aren't. What is the point of saying that according to some research poll, 50% of Americans currently identify with the democrat party? Or that as of 4/18, 53% of Americans support the democrat Congress. Are these numbers rising? Falling? Are they a cause or effect of the 2006 election, or both? There's no context. People can come up with statistics to prove anything. 40% of all people know that.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 15:30, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The point is, polling obviously is important to many contributors. They evidently either make personal judgements based upon polling data, or view it as foundational to any public arguement or discourse. And it's hard to argue with statistics. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:40, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

#1, your ad hominem attack on a professor you don't even know the name of (and whose political views I don't even know, because the course is taught in a nonpartisan manner) has no bearing whatsoever on this debate, and #2, I never said that the data should ever be anything more than temporary and relevant. Do we refuse to list the governors of states because this changes over time? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:21, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:If you think that calling a professor a liberal is an attack, I guess that's your problem. But your ridiculous question about governors just weakens your argument. There is only one governor of a state at any given time, but there are dozens of opinion polls which rarely come up with the same results. So adding opinion polls willy nilly in an encyclopedia article does nothing but detract from its intent of being factual.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 15:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Wait a second. This article includes the slanted weasel words "Democratic national leadership has been accused of being ambivalent about terrorism[11] and insufficiently patriotic" ... they are cited, mind you, but aren't these attacks pretty much the same as opinion polls? Why not link to the copious amounts of info that says Democrats are quite patriotic and serious about terror? Why choose these two extremely biased opinion links? Are these really "facts" worth building an encyclopedia entry around? --[[User:Wennberg|Wennberg]] 22:27, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

===Please===
The sentence: '''Democrats in the US Congress currently have a 53.8% disapproval and a 36.8% approval rating according to the RealClearPolitics Average of several dozens of Congressional Job Approval polls conducted 04/05 - 04/18. [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/archive/?poll_id=18]'''
This is the "Congressional job Approval poll" not the "democratic congress approval poll". [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]
:Hmm, let's see, who controls the US House of Reps & the Senate.... [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:28, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
Fair enough...let us also include the pre-election numbers then '''shall we'''? Based on the Fox News Poll of 10-11-2006 Approve:31% Disapprove:63% Spread:-32% ( from the same source). [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]
:What those numbers show is the misreporting on GW Bush's poll numbers. Both Bush & the Democratic Congress suffer from negative polls, 60/40. IOW, people do not disapprove of Bush personally, people disapprove of the performance of government in general. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:43, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::The poll should be taken out because it doesn't relate specifically to the Democratic Party. The poll is talking about the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. It doesn't matter that the Democrats are in control of Congress. If you were able to get a statistic about just the Democrat approval rating in Congress than you might be able to use it, but as it is right now some of the people in the poll are saying how they don't approve what the Republicans are doing in Congress too. --[[User:Spyder|Spyder]] 13:51, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

==History==

The Treaty of Ghent called for everything to return to the ''Status Quo Antebellum.'' In other words, a draw. The text of the treaty can be read in the ''United States Statutes at Large'' found here <http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=008/llsl008.db&recNum=231> --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 13:50, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:While ''Status Quo Antebellum'' referes to territorial disputesd, it does not refere to other objectives, American complaint of British interference on the high seas. So while Britain failed in it achieving its objectives it can be considered defeated. Whereas the US achieiving its stated aims, it can be considered victorious. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:59, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Most good college level textbooks (Tindall and Shi, and Ayers, Gould, et. al.) have the war as a draw. The two nations agreed to end the conflict, leave prewar boundries in place, and return prisoners. All other questions were to be settled in the future. It would be difficult to see this as anything other than a draw.--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 14:06, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::OK, good points. No problem. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:11, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

To whoever keeps changing this part. Follow the link above and read the treaty.

==Needed citations==
This article needs some citations. I decided to help out by flagging some of the facts that needed to be supported. --[[User:Wennberg|Wennberg]] 22:21, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== Reversions ==

In reply to Johnl's questions for the reverts, the reason is obvious: FDR failed to lead the U.S. out of the depression, instead keeping the U.S. in a depression until WWII. Nor did FDR lead us to victory in WWII. FDR was dying in 1945.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:56, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:He died I think over a month or two before VE day.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 18:56, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::Shouldn't it at least be mentioned that he led the nation during important battles; Normandy, Midway, etc.? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:58, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Looks like I am wrong. He died a little less than a month before VE day. But he was incapacitated a while before then.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 19:00, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

FDR led the US for most fo the war.
:WWII was basically between the Soviet Union & Germany; if anybody "won" the War, it was the Soviet Union. 88% of all casualties in WWII were in the Soviet Union. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:15, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:Further, FDR did not "lead the US out of the Depression"; the [[New Ordeal]] (a euphemism for "New Deal") lasted until 1949. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:58, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Hmmph you know I'm almost afraid to say this, becaunse I'm not the type tostart screaming conspiracy, however it does seem as if this is a blatant attempt to make a DEMOCRAT president seem as if he was completely unimportant and totally irrelevant to the nation during perhaps the biggest and most influential crisis in modern history of which we (theUnited States) were the deciding factor in. Come on... So FDR was a Democrat. So what. To make it seem as if he wasn't all that important (in apositive manner) is a bit silly. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:00, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:True; the planet would indeed be a different place if FDR didn't get elected. Some credit should be given to the courageous souls who supported him, without whom we'd all be eating sauerkraut and sushi right now. Why I just read how [[Strom Thurmond]] supported FDR for a fourth term. [http://www.kevinbaker.info/c_wtm.html] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:11, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

::Even when you're being sarcastic it is nice to see acknowledgment and validation of his positive importance. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:41, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, FDR & the Kennedy's prove the falacy of Marxism; the Roosevelt's and the Kennedy's prove that rich aristocrats who never did a stitch of labor in thier life, that inherited it all by exploiting the poor, actually (a) may have a function and (b) usefulness on this planet. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:17, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
::::You're not dragging me into a loaded "debate." I don't agree with your opinion on what you just mentioned, and I find it all too convenient that you chose two figures I recently did critiques of their articles on here. But I'm not biting. Honestly I'd expect better of a sysop. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:08, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::Huh? Wha...? Please show me where the above analysis of the Roosevelt's, Kennedy's & Marxist theory is in error. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 09:40, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::P.S. No need to make personal comments directed at me over this. I apologize, my faith prohibits me from worshipping human beings; that many Democrats and liberals have looked to the messianic vision of the Roosevelt & Kennedy families for generations is a matter of record. Please, let's not allow anti-religious bigotry into this discussion. Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]]

== Religion section ==

For some reason, Jim Webb of VA is listed in this section as a catholic, he is not. He is protestant of some sort. I'm going to change his name to that of former president JFK, who is a much more prominent catholic