Quote from: TboneAgain on September 12, 2017, 06:28:54 PM
By your own definition, Republican "ascendancy" had been achieved in 1861 with the installation of Lincoln and the 37th Congress. But as I pointed out in my last post, that "ascendancy" was by no means constant or continuous over the next seven or eight decades. (It strikes me odd that you would mark the beginning of your Republican "ascendancy" with the tenure of the Democrat Andrew Johnson.)

Your assertion that "party labels were irrelevant" is just silly. You seem to want us to believe what you say, as opposed to what we can see with our own lying eyes. But there's little doubt that the period you describe, roughly 1865-1933, contains the entirety of the first great Progressive upheaval of modern times, the period from around 1900-1917. I have already written about the horrendous damage done to the republic during those years by Democrats/Progressives/Leftists who obtained sufficient control of the apparatus of government during that period to affect the passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments and the federal income tax and the formation of the Federal Reserve system. This puts the lie to your assertion of GOP "ascendancy" during the period you define.

I note your affectation for adding unneeded letters to the names of historical figures. Andrew Johnson is "Johnston" in your telling. Irving Fisher is "Fischer" in your post. I note also that you decline to describe Fisher as an unrepentant Leftist, a self-described Progressive, a vegetarian, a fan of Prohibition, and president of the American Eugenics Society. Also, he was such a great economist that he failed to recognize the stock market crash of 1929 and lost his shirt in the aftermath. So much for your "astute observer."

Please check back when you have something sensible to say.

Hmm........... now I understand.
So you're the self appointed site nag in charge of punctuation, spelling and tenses.
Hey, we all gotta do sumping in life.
As I'm uninterested in engaging in a dopey urinary contest;  let me get to the point.
My assertion was direct and simple; viz. the GOP has never been a party of Conservative Principle since Fremont in 1856 nor does it have any affinity w/the attitudes, behaviors, impulses and traits of the common man. Sloganeering to the contrary is the pablum of easily persuaded republicrat weenies addicted to bullshit.
Your retort to this assertion was???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Further, I asserted that the GOP was historically protectionist, having promoted dozens of Excise Duties and Tariffs throughout its political ASCENDANCY and was never an advocate of Free Trade. Why so? Because as the wise Adam Smith observed, Free Trade creates wealth for all in the nation while protectionism benefits the crony corporatist class allowing them to restrict supply thereby raising prices. And the GOP has been in the deep pocket of the corporatist class since day one.
Your retort to this assertion was; Hey the government needed the money. Hmm.....for what?
Perhaps it was all those 19th century foreign threats from Czarist Russia, Imperial Germany and Japan that required us to massively expand our military??? Er.......no.
It was money to grow the government, in particular, the centralizing and regulatory environment we now fondly refer to as the 'Swamp.'
Lastly, I asserted that the GOP was the major impetus behind the centralization of power in DC and viscerally hostile to States Rights; aided by a compliant SCOTUS appointed by the GOP. As such it promoted and passed:
Amendment 14, which replaced the States as the definer/guarantor of the rights of and obligations to its citizens, thereby opening the door, decades later, to abortion on demand and same sex marriage.
Amendment 15, which supplanted the authority of the State to control and regulate the franchise within its borders.
Amendment 16, which ushered in the Income Tax granting the central government uncapped taxing authority.
Amendment 17 which supplanted the State Government as the the Electors of its Senators.
Your retort? Something about Irving Fisher being a teetotaler and a vegetarian??? Hmm......
For the record Fisher, who saw protectionism as a fraud and hustle of the general public, was as a mathematical genius who created the Equations explaining/proving his Theories on Utility, on Interest and Capital and on the Quantity of Money. For those, he was awarded the Nobel in Economics; his strongest advocates being Schumpeter and Friedman; neither one a lefty.
Let's end here w/a request. Whenever you see one of my post ignore it, move along and I'll reciprocate, as I have no further interest in your pretensions.
Hey, here's a suggestion. Next time you're correcting  poster prose, check the capitalization. After all, a missed capital letter can completely alter the meaning of an argument!!!!

 

Quote from: AndyJackson on September 13, 2017, 09:50:21 AM
lol, here's a photo of Mitch McConnell as he competes against the democrats -

https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=washiongton+generals&fr=yhs-mozilla-002&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-002&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.capoliticalreview.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F10%2FWashinton-Generals.jpg#id=2&iurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.capoliticalreview.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F10%2FWashinton-Generals.jpg&action=click

Was this what you were going for?

Quote from: Walter Josh on September 13, 2017, 12:04:43 PM

Further, I asserted that the GOP was historically protectionist, having promoted dozens of Excise Duties and Tariffs throughout its political ASCENDANCY and was never an advocate of Free Trade. Why so? Because as the wise Adam Smith observed, Free Trade creates wealth for all in the nation while protectionism benefits the crony corporatist class allowing them to restrict supply thereby raising prices. And the GOP has been in the deep pocket of the corporatist class since day one.

And this is one of the main reasons the south withdrew. The Excise Duties and Tariffs passed in congress went strictly down party lines. It was one of the few areas where congress would not compromise. The north wanted to protect their new industries and needed the south's$. Even on slavery, congress was able to compromise in order to get laws passed. However, looking at todays congress, I do believe they all have their hands down the corporate pants.

Quote from: Walter Josh on September 13, 2017, 12:04:43 PM
Hmm........... now I understand.
So you're the self appointed site nag in charge of punctuation, spelling and tenses.
Hey, we all gotta do sumping in life.
As I'm uninterested in engaging in a dopey urinary contest;  let me get to the point.
My assertion was direct and simple; viz. the GOP has never been a party of Conservative Principle since Fremont in 1856 nor does it have any affinity w/the attitudes, behaviors, impulses and traits of the common man. Sloganeering to the contrary is the pablum of easily persuaded republicrat weenies addicted to bullshit.
Your retort to this assertion was???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Further, I asserted that the GOP was historically protectionist, having promoted dozens of Excise Duties and Tariffs throughout its political ASCENDANCY and was never an advocate of Free Trade. Why so? Because as the wise Adam Smith observed, Free Trade creates wealth for all in the nation while protectionism benefits the crony corporatist class allowing them to restrict supply thereby raising prices. And the GOP has been in the deep pocket of the corporatist class since day one.
Your retort to this assertion was; Hey the government needed the money. Hmm.....for what?
Perhaps it was all those 19th century foreign threats from Czarist Russia, Imperial Germany and Japan that required us to massively expand our military??? Er.......no.
It was money to grow the government, in particular, the centralizing and regulatory environment we now fondly refer to as the 'Swamp.'
Lastly, I asserted that the GOP was the major impetus behind the centralization of power in DC and viscerally hostile to States Rights; aided by a compliant SCOTUS appointed by the GOP. As such it promoted and passed:
Amendment 14, which replaced the States as the definer/guarantor of the rights of and obligations to its citizens, thereby opening the door, decades later, to abortion on demand and same sex marriage.
Amendment 15, which supplanted the authority of the State to control and regulate the franchise within its borders.
Amendment 16, which ushered in the Income Tax granting the central government uncapped taxing authority.
Amendment 17 which supplanted the State Government as the the Electors of its Senators.
Your retort? Something about Irving Fisher being a teetotaler and a vegetarian??? Hmm......
For the record Fisher, who saw protectionism as a fraud and hustle of the general public, was as a mathematical genius who created the Equations explaining/proving his Theories on Utility, on Interest and Capital and on the Quantity of Money. For those, he was awarded the Nobel in Economics; his strongest advocates being Schumpeter and Friedman; neither one a lefty.
Let's end here w/a request. Whenever you see one of my post ignore it, move along and I'll reciprocate, as I have no further interest in your pretensions.
Hey, here's a suggestion. Next time you're correcting  poster prose, check the capitalization. After all, a missed capital letter can completely alter the meaning of an argument!!!!

My, my! One of us does not take well to correction! Spelling people's names correctly, especially the names of the people you claim to know a great deal about, doesn't seem too burdensome a request. Also, it helps your case by not giving the immediate impression that you don't know what you're talking about. When you can't manage to spell their names correctly, people wonder right away whether you're even serious, and how these people's actions or words can help support your position. You can consider this constructive criticism, designed to assist you in making your points in the future. You're welcome.

In your original post, you didn't make much of any point that I could detect, other than virulent dissatisfaction with the GOP. (I'll bet you didn't know that the Democrat Party was generally called the GOP until near the end of the nineteenth century. But that's another topic....) But then you went on to describe your weird concept of "ascendancy," under which the Republican Party owned every branch of the government for nearly 70 years, from Johnston (sic) to Hoover. And you went on to blame the Republicans for everything that happened during that period, including especially the passage of the 14th, 15th, 16th, and 17th amendments.

Those assertions, sir, are bullshit. Your claims, sir, are bullshit.

It is true that the 14th and 15th Amendments have been used in recent years to "permit" things their authors could not conceivably have anticipated. Which Republican that you can name foresaw in 1868 that the 14th would be used to justify gay marriage almost 150 years later? Even the most generous literal reading of that amendment today cannot be construed to legalize gay marriage, but those are the times we live in -- NOW, not then. I explained in clear terms what the 14th and 15th Amendments were intended to do. You can't seem to get over what LEFTISTS have bastardized them to do TODAY.

I tried to explain to you that the federal government had no way of raising revenues besides tariffs and excise taxes prior to 1913. You seem to think that just doesn't matter at all, even though you keep pointing to the 16th Amendment -- a creature of the Progressives of the day -- as a product of the GOP. It clearly hasn't occurred to you that the 16th Amendment is just so many words without legislation enabling an income tax -- something the Democrats in firm control of the Congress and the White House were giddily happy to provide in 1913.

Also, I shouldn't have to point this out, but.... The Supreme Court of the United States has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the adoption of a constitutional amendment. (You have brought this up twice.) The amendment process is covered in Article V of the Constitution, which does not contain the words "court" or "supreme."  The purpose of the Supreme Court is to ensure that the laws passed by Congress are legal under the Constitution. A ratified amendment is part and parcel of the Constitution. How can the Supreme Court decide whether a part of the Constitution is constitutional?

Finally, Irving Fisher, a nice fellow I'm sure, did NOT, as you claim, win a Nobel prize in economics or any other category. Fisher died in 1947. The first Nobel Prize in economics was awarded in 1969. Like you, Fisher didn't quite make the cut.

I won't bother to correct your spelling or grammar in the future. I don't really have that kind of time on my hands. But if you continue to misrepresent history and tell outright lies on this board, I'll be on you like stink on shit. Here we prefer to back our positions with verifiable facts, not wild-eyed conjecture and utter fabrication.

Quote from: Solar on September 13, 2017, 12:33:47 PM
Was this what you were going for?

Perhaps.......... perhaps not.........

Quote from: AndyJackson on September 13, 2017, 02:30:49 PM
Perhaps.......... perhaps not.........

That's what came up when I clicked your link.

Quote from: AndyJackson on September 13, 2017, 02:30:49 PM
Perhaps.......... perhaps not.........

Oh here we go.

Quote from: taxed on September 13, 2017, 03:02:29 PM
Oh here we go.

lol, yes, I clearly entered the Python "room for an argument".

I just got one flippant remark, gave one back.  Sort of like a little humor.

Not exactly WW3.  Unless I'm misunderstanding something.

Quote from: AndyJackson on September 13, 2017, 04:07:20 PM
lol, yes, I clearly entered the Python "room for an argument".

I just got one flippant remark, gave one back.  Sort of like a little humor.

Not exactly WW3.  Unless I'm misunderstanding something.

He spent time to help correct the image you posted to help you make your point/joke.  Then you gave a flippant remark.

We like humor, but only when it has some humor in it.

Quote from: AndyJackson on September 13, 2017, 04:07:20 PM
lol, yes, I clearly entered the Python "room for an argument".

I just got one flippant remark, gave one back.  Sort of like a little humor.

Not exactly WW3.  Unless I'm misunderstanding something.

Jeez Andy, there was no animus on my part, I was simply trying to help you out since you posted a bad link.
I simply clicked the link you provided and posted the pic that came up.

Relax, you have no enemies here.

I guess I interpreted "Is this what you were going for ?'" differently than you did.  We have a history, lol.

I wasn't actually going for anything, I just posted a link.  But Que Sera,  Sera, according to the great philosopher Doris Day.

And back to real life, can you give me a simple 'how to' on how to copy and paste an image in a post ?  Never did figure that out.  This can be a positive, teachable moment lol.

Quote from: AndyJackson on September 13, 2017, 04:19:42 PM
And back to real life, can you give me a simple 'how to' on how to copy and paste an image in a post ?  Never did figure that out.  This can be a positive, teachable moment lol.

Post the link, highlight it, then click the image icon...

Thanks !

Quote from: AndyJackson on September 13, 2017, 04:19:42 PM
And back to real life, can you give me a simple 'how to' on how to copy and paste an image in a post ?  Never did figure that out.  This can be a positive, teachable moment lol.

I think the problem was a link to a slideshow of pics and the one that came up was the one I posted.
Right click on the pic you want, a menu opens, select "Copy Image Adress", then click this icon , in the menu above lower left corner, it will appear in the body of your post. 
between the two brackets, img]Click here[/img paste your address, then click preview and see if that's what you wanted.

Hey, it's history, let it go.