"You seem to be going around in circles. Now you are comparing Goldwater to McCain."
That was actually a way of advancing the discussion. If anyone is trying to create circles here, it's not me. You said Goldwater would be called a moderate today. McCain is an example of a modern 'moderate'. Therefore, by your logic, we should compare McCain to Goldwater to see if you are correct.
"Initially, you made the statement that JFK was more conservative than GWB, which is patently false. JFK's New Frontier became LBJ's Great Society."
Who is the greatest funder on the War on Poverty?
1. JFK?
2. Johnson?
3. Bush?
The Correct answer is Bush. He is, fiscally speaking, the greatest 'warrior' against poverty than any other president in US history. I'd call that more liberal than JFK.
As for the post-60s Goldwater, that isn't what I was referring to. He did seem to change. I can understand the confusion there. Just like Bush, Goldwater kept a lot of his thoughts close to the vest.
"You are comparing apples and oranges."
Actually I could. It depends on the standard. Does the apple weigh more than the orange? According to the standard of more terroritory, more liberated, fewer losses, and excluding mere bombing raids, no one can boast they did better in all those categories than Bush. That's an indication of finesse. Any president can tell a bunch of guys to storm a beach head. That shouldn't impress anyone.
When the standard is, greatest number of enemies killed, being caught in a war not prepared for, leading troops into slaughter houses, yeah, FDR beats him, but it wasn't what I call a smashing success the way he did it. D-Day, Battle of the Bulge, Iwo Jima, those were won by MEN despite the failings of their leaders. MacArthur and Patton had to scheme their way into victory around the failings of their 'superiors'.
"The technological and command-in-control edge the US has over Iraq made it like shooting fish in a barrel. The outcome was never in doubt. Your contention that Bush is our greatest wartime President is just simple nonsense."
You are correct. Great would be too strong a word. 'Most successful' is what I always try to say, because the greatness of today's military has a whole lot to do with Weinburger and Reagan. If I said, 'greatest', I apologize.
"The Soviets lost in Afghanistan the same way we lost in Vietnam."
Yep. And people thought Bush was crazy to try, didn't they? He outfoxed them.
"Gee, I wonder how many lives have been lost from the unholy war of Islam? How many? Don'tyou know?"
I know enough to know that radical Islam has killed tens of millions of people, beyond any mortal's ability to count. It is well-entrenched. You want to diminish it's significance, but it is a powerful, cunning enemy we face. And many of it's followers are as deadly as the Kamazazis of WWII.
First off, you cobbled the election with the primary with feigned ignorance. You also tried to make me sound like a nutcase rambling about some conspiracy.
Do you know what 'front loaded' means? We had a front loaded primary in 2000. Now why would that be? It was publicly reported. It is a fact. It was designed to favor a 'particular kind' of candidate, the kind that is less good at personal campaign skills and has a fatter rolodex. I imagine they are planning something similar for 2008. That may not bother you, but it bothers the heck out of me.
Yeah, you may think I don't know much, that I'm just some rambling dufus, based on your 'Holiday Inn' jibe. Whatever man. Life is too short. I'm beginning to think you're a waste of my time.
Rather convoluted logic. My comment about Goldwater was in response to your ridiculous assertion that a 60s moderate would be "called extreme right wing today." I asked the rhetorical question, "What would Goldwater be considered today? Probably a moderate. LOL." Obviously, you didn't get the point. I grew up in the 60s and understand what was the political reality. Goldwater lost in a landslide. The Dems had commanding margins in both houses of Congress. The prevailing ethos was do whatever feels good. Drugs, sex, and anti-war/anti-military sentiment were prevalent. The Conservatives were a distinct minority politically.
Who is the greatest funder on the War on Poverty? 1. JFK? 2. Johnson? 3. Bush?
First, the War on Poverty was an LBJ initiated program, so that rules out JFK. Making poverty a national concern set in motion a series of bills and acts, creating programs such as Head Start, food stamps, work study, Medicare and Medicaid, which are still with us today.
Second, it depends on how you measure the amount of funds spend based on inflation adjusted dollars. And what programs you include in the total. Bush inherited most of the programs with the prescription drug benefit being the major exception.
During the Johnson years the percentage growth of federal non-defense spending was 13.04%, 12.60%, 11.81% and 5.13% respectively. Those four years average a growth rate of 10.65%. Bush 43 is certainly less than that. So my final answer of the three is LBJ. Please provide your figures.
Actually I could. It depends on the standard. Does the apple weigh more than the orange? According to the standard of more terroritory, more liberated, fewer losses, and excluding mere bombing raids, no one can boast they did better in all those categories than Bush. That's an indication of finesse. Any president can tell a bunch of guys to storm a beach head. That shouldn't impress anyone.
Pardon me, but your ignorance is showing.
More territory - No comparison. Roosevelt/Truman: Try Europe, North Africa, China, Japan, Southeast Asia, not to mention the Soviet Union, which we supplied and assisted.
More liberated - No comparison. Roosevelt/Truman. See the list above. Probably close to a billion people.
fewer losses - Reagan in Panama and Grenada. Clinton in Haiti and Bosinia/Kosovo. McKinley in Spanish-American War. Bush 41 in the Gulf War.
It has nothing to do with finesse, rather superior technology and war fighting capabilities. They provide a force multiplier effect, which enables smaller numbers to be a numerically superior force. It also has to do with the military capabilities of the enemy you are fighting.
When the standard is, greatest number of enemies killed, being caught in a war not prepared for, leading troops into slaughter houses, yeah, FDR beats him, but it wasn't what I call a smashing success the way he did it. D-Day, Battle of the Bulge, Iwo Jima, those were won by MEN despite the failings of their leaders. MacArthur and Patton had to scheme their way into victory around the failings of their 'superiors'.
Now you are descending into the inane and fantasy land. Roosevelt did not direct the strategical and tactical operations in winning WWII. Our military leaders did. They also fought the war with the weapons they had. They did not have smart bombs, jet aircraft, cluster bombs, etc. If you know anything about WWII, I would not be touting MacArthur too much.
I know enough to know that radical Islam has killed tens of millions of people, beyond any mortal's ability to count. It is well-entrenched. You want to diminish it's significance, but it is a powerful, cunning enemy we face. And many of it's followers are as deadly as the Kamazazis of WWII.
Provide some specifics. The same could be said for Communism and Christianity. We are battling militant, fundamentalist Islam, a real threat, but a distinct minority.
Do you know what 'front loaded' means? We had a front loaded primary in 2000. Now why would that be? It was publicly reported. It is a fact. It was designed to favor a 'particular kind' of candidate, the kind that is less good at personal campaign skills and has a fatter rolodex. I imagine they are planning something similar for 2008. That may not bother you, but it bothers the heck out of me.
So who are the ones cooking up front loaded primaries? You make it sound so sinister. Who are the they who "are planning something similar for 2008?"
Yeah, you may think I don't know much, that I'm just some rambling dufus, based on your 'Holiday Inn' jibe.
You are remarkably perceptive.
Whatever man. Life is too short. I'm beginning to think you're a waste of my time.
I have already reached a similar conclusion.