Oh oh oh oh, Mr. Obama

[Elok]

Hmm, glimpsed something about this on the TV at work, tuned to CNN. I know only that it involves Obama speaking to schoolchildren and offering some kind of generic be-good pap; it seems to be something fairly inane. Guess I'll find out soon enough.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well of course. Occasionally it has been ruled by the tribe called 'democrats'.

Um... the Democrats in the 19th Century are more like the Republicans of today. Jefferson, Jackson - all Democrats.

Of course this doesn't help the "completely non-partisan" meme of Reagan's speech to schoolkids.

[Ben Kenobi]

Um... the Democrats in the 19th Century are more like the Republicans of today. Jefferson, Jackson - all Democrats.

Of course this doesn't help the "completely non-partisan" meme of Reagan's speech to schoolkids.

With a few exceptions, such as being the party of slavery, the party of protectionism, etc, etc, etc.

And Jefferson wasn't a democrat.

[The Mad Monk]

I think this is it. Being on dial-up means it's an hour before I'm sure.

Well, Imran?

[Theben]

What did you people do to get him to leave, and do you think it would work twice?

He likes Texas a lot. If we can get him to keep going south it'll be win-win.

[loinburger]

Too bad Pinochet's dead

[RGBVideo]

Christ, VJ, you are incredibly dense. You are making the mistake that lefties make when they think Reagan was a dunce. He knew what he was doing there as he was fighting the Democrats at the time on lowering taxes and free trade.

Btw, even if we subscribe to the asinine assumption that it ONLY referred to the 18th Century, the US was HARDLY for open world trade. Protectionist tariffs were passed over and over again.

...in the 19th century. elaborating, after the civil war

Btw, even if we subscribe to the asinine assumption that it ONLY referred to

yeah, i'm sure that when someone says "the original values of the american revolution", he means US govt policy in, say 1876-1896 or 1956-1976, as much as he means US govt policy in 1776-1796

He knew what he was doing there as he was fighting the Democrats at the time on lowering taxes and free trade.

point is that it's a non-partisan history lesson. you can argue that it is partisan if you think he's rewriting history ie. question whether "founding fathers" were for protectionism more than they were for free trade

this is a stupid thing to get into an argument over, because op was about obama's actions instead of reagan's. but i don't think that's really a speech that is pushing partisan politics.

[Ramo]

So the 20th century is the 19th? They were talking bout tariffs in the 19th century. The reason it was passed is because things were thought to be too free under the Rupublican sweep in the roaring 20's.

Jesus. Besides civil rights, in the 19th century the most important distinction between Republicans and Dems is that the Republicans were protectionist and the Dems were free traders. After Reconstruction ended, it was the most important distinction. If there's one thing someone should know about American political history during this period, it is that.

[Ben Kenobi]

Jesus. Besides civil rights, in the 19th century the most important distinction between Republicans and Dems is that the Republicans were protectionist and the Dems were free traders.

So you are saying that it was the republicans who were in favour of civil rights and the democrats who were in favour of slavery? Your statement is ambiguous.

After Reconstruction ended, it was the most important distinction.

Uh, no. Civil rights was an issue for the Democrats well up until 1964 with the passing of the civil rights act. Why do you think LBJ commented that he was alienating his base? He was siding with the Republicans who supported the bill in order to override his own party. The Dems, under Wilson, also shut down the immigration of races other than white during his administration.

If there's one thing someone should know about American political history during this period, it is that.

The period begins with Jackson, who was a protectionist. Cleveland, who was the only significant democrat in the period was not a free trader by any stretch of the imagination. The democrats have always been protectionist, and still retain it.

[Ramo]

So you are saying that it was the republicans who were in favour of civil rights and the democrats who were in favour of slavery? Your statement is ambiguous.

Yes. During Reconstruction and its aftermath, this was largely the case. After LBJ passed civil rights, of course, the racists flocked to the GOP.

Uh, no.

Uh, yes. Stop deliberately misreading what I wrote. I was obliviously talking about the 19th century. LBJ (and Wilson) were in the 20th.

The Dems, under Wilson, also shut down the immigration of races other than white during his administration.

Your ignorance of basic facts is incredibly aggravating. No, this is not the case. The Dems were more pro-immigration. The most severe immigration restrictions occurred in the 20's, a period when Republicans were clearly in charge. Read a book.

The period begins with Jackson, who was a protectionist.

There was no such thing as the Republican Party during Jackson's presidency. And no, not really. Jackson reduced tariff duties during his Presidency (the "compromise tariff").

Cleveland, who was the only significant democrat in the period was not a free trader by any stretch of the imagination.

1. In the American political system, the President is not a dictator. It was even less the case in the 19th century. Congress matters.
2. Compared to the Republicans, yes he was. From wiki:

Tariffs
Another contentious financial issue at the time was the protective tariff. While it had not been a central point in his campaign, Cleveland's opinion on the tariff was that of most Democrats: that the tariff ought to be reduced.[102] Republicans generally favored a high tariff to protect American industries.[102] American tariffs had been high since the Civil War, and by the 1880s the tariff brought in so much revenue that the government was running a surplus.[103]

In 1886, a bill to reduce the tariff was narrowly defeated in the House.[104] The tariff issue was emphasized in the Congressional elections that year, and the forces of protectionism increased their numbers in the Congress.[105] Nevertheless, Cleveland continued to advocate tariff reform. As the surplus grew, Cleveland and the reformers called for a tariff for revenue only.[106] His message to Congress in 1887 (quoted at left) pointed out the injustice of taking more money from the people than the government needed to pay for its operating expenses.[107] Republicans, as well as protectionist northern Democrats like Samuel J. Randall, believed that without high tariffs American industries would fail, and continued to fight reformers' efforts.[108] Roger Q. Mills, the chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, proposed a bill that would reduce the tariff burden from about 47% to about 40%.[109] After significant exertions by Cleveland and his allies, the bill passed the House.[109] The Republican Senate, however, failed to come to agreement with the Democratic House, and the bill died in the conference committee. Dispute over the tariff would carry over into the 1888 Presidential election.

[...]

Tariff reform

Having succeeded in reversing the Harrison administration's silver policy, Cleveland sought next to reverse the effects of the McKinley tariff. What would become the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act was introduced by West Virginian Representative William L. Wilson in December 1893.[150] After lengthy debate, the bill passed the House by a considerable margin.[151] The bill proposed moderate downward revisions in the tariff, especially on raw materials.[152] The shortfall in revenue was to be made up by an income tax of two percent on incomes in excess of $4,000.[152]

The bill was next considered in the Senate, where opposition was stronger.[153] Many Senators, led by Arthur Pue Gorman of Maryland, wanted more protection for their states' industries than the Wilson bill allowed.[153] Others, such as Morgan and Hill, opposed partly out of a personal enmity to Cleveland.[153] By the time the bill left the Senate, it had more than 600 amendments attached that nullified most of the reforms.[154] The Sugar Trust in particular lobbied for changes that favored it at the expense of the consumer.[155] Cleveland was unhappy with the result, and denounced the revised measure as a disgraceful product of the control of the Senate by trusts and business interests.[156] Even so, he believed it was an improvement over the McKinley tariff and allowed it to become law without his signature.[157]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Cleveland#Tariffs

[Ben Kenobi]

Your ignorance of basic facts is incredibly aggravating. No, this is not the case. The Dems were more pro-immigration. The most severe immigration restrictions occurred in the 20's, a period when Republicans were clearly in charge. Read a book.

The 1917 immigration act was passed by Wilson and did exactly what I said it did. Increased a head tax and attempted to clamp down on immigration from non-white races.

The racist party was in full swing, and had already attempted several bills, including one in 1915, which wilson vetoed.

People who were now excluded from the United States included: "all idiots, imbeciles, feeble-minded persons, epileptics, insane persons; persons who have had one or more attacks of insanity at any time previously; persons of constitutional psychopathic inferiority; persons with chronic alcoholism; paupers; professional beggars; vagrants; persons afflicted with tuberculosis in any form or with a loathsome or dangerous contagious disease; persons not comprehended within any of the foregoing excluded classes who are found to be and are certified by the examining surgeon as being mentally or physically defective, such physical defect being of a nature which may affect the ability of such alien to earn a living; persons who have been convicted of or admit having committed a felony or other crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude; polygamists, or persons who practice polygamy or believe in or advocate the practice of polygamy; anarchists, or persons who believe in or advocate the overthrow by force or violence of the Government of the United States".

http://library.uwb.edu/guides/USimmigration/1917_immigration_act.html

There was no such thing as the Republican Party during Jackson's presidency. And no, not really. Jackson reduced tariff duties during his Presidency (the "compromise tariff").

Sigh. The Democrat party begins with Jackson. Jackson overrode Calhoun who attempted to nullify the abominable tariffs. The reason Jackson compromised is because of the massive pressure against the abominable tariff, not because he was a free-trader.

Jackson was a major proponent of centralised government.

1. In the American political system, the President is not a dictator. It was even less the case in the 19th century. Congress matters.

Again, for sake of argument the Whigs were formed by Calhoun in opposition to Jackson's Democrats. The Democrats were the party of the plantation, who favoured the farmers over the industrialists. They favoured tariffs that protected the farmers, while the whigs favoured tariffs that protected the industrialists, and the bankers.

2. Compared to the Republicans, yes he was. From wiki:

Wikipedia is not a source. Cite a real source please.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And Jefferson wasn't a democrat.

You may want to tell him that, considering he founded the party .

[Ben Kenobi]

Umm, Democrat/Republican was his party. The Federalists were his opposition.

Edit, in reference to Jefferson, not Jackson. Can't believe you misunderstood me Imran.

Jackson founded the democrat party.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The Democrat party begins with Jackson.

Wow. The ignorance is stunning.

Considering which party Jackson ran on (and originally lost the President to John Quincy Adams on)...

Jackson was a major proponent of centralised government.

Yeah, because destroying the Second National Bank of the US was something a centralized government type was want to do.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Umm, Democrat/Republican was his party. The Federalists were his opposition.

Jackson founded the democrat party.

You are a moron.

Actually in many different ways in this one quote. The least being he never ran against a Federalist.