Maine's Question 1

[Alexander Hamilton]

Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant ().  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this, by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great terrible Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.

LOL using a quote from one of our nation's first enthusiastic supporters of a strong central government.

Precisely. I am convinced that Roosevelt Republican has no real belief system. He is the GOP Bill Clinton.

I support strong economic management by the federal government. That is well understood by now. I'm a Republican built in the mold of Hamilton, Roosevelt, Coolidge.

Um, Roosevelt Republican? Calvin Coolidge was against a strong Federal role in any sort of economic management.

"The business of government, is business."-- Calvin Coolidge. Enough said.

"The business of the American people is business."

Get your facts straight.

Either way, Coolidge promoted pro-business policies that are directly in line with my ideology. Pro-business, socially libertarian, non-interventionist.

But he wasn't a corporatist. Coolidge took a hands-off approach to the economy, cutting military spending and ending Harding's farm subsidies within his first year in office. The man most certainly did not believe the Federal government had a role to play in economics.

Exactly. I am strictly anti-corporatist, hence ROOSEVELT REPUBLICAN. Coolidge certainly did believe the government had a role to play in economics, albeit not one of anti-growth and corporate/individual handouts.

Are you stupid? Please, just answer my question without fuss. Are you stupid?

The man imposed economic controls during World War I (as Governor). He was certainly open to the idea of economic management. Are YOU stupid?

Do you realize that a war economy is not the same as a peacetime economy. and one of the reasons libertarians detest war is because it forces artificial government controls over the economy? That has nothing to do with ideology; it is the nature of war that requires such controls.

He also imposed regulations on labor policies. He was not the libertarian dream you want him to be.

The only reason Coolidge even permitted the formation of unions was to placate the actual Roosevelt Republicans. The man himself was a pretty committed libertarian.

You, again, ignore the fact that Coolidge adopted nationalist policies in the vein of Hamilton or Roosevelt throughout his Presidency.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant ().  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this, by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great terrible Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.

LOL using a quote from one of our nation's first enthusiastic supporters of a strong central government.

Precisely. I am convinced that Roosevelt Republican has no real belief system. He is the GOP Bill Clinton.

I support strong economic management by the federal government. That is well understood by now. I'm a Republican built in the mold of Hamilton, Roosevelt, Coolidge.

Um, Roosevelt Republican? Calvin Coolidge was against a strong Federal role in any sort of economic management.

"The business of government, is business."-- Calvin Coolidge. Enough said.

"The business of the American people is business."

Get your facts straight.

Either way, Coolidge promoted pro-business policies that are directly in line with my ideology. Pro-business, socially libertarian, non-interventionist.

But he wasn't a corporatist. Coolidge took a hands-off approach to the economy, cutting military spending and ending Harding's farm subsidies within his first year in office. The man most certainly did not believe the Federal government had a role to play in economics.

Exactly. I am strictly anti-corporatist, hence ROOSEVELT REPUBLICAN. Coolidge certainly did believe the government had a role to play in economics, albeit not one of anti-growth and corporate/individual handouts.

Are you stupid? Please, just answer my question without fuss. Are you stupid?

The man imposed economic controls during World War I (as Governor). He was certainly open to the idea of economic management. Are YOU stupid?

Do you realize that a war economy is not the same as a peacetime economy. and one of the reasons libertarians detest war is because it forces artificial government controls over the economy? That has nothing to do with ideology; it is the nature of war that requires such controls.

He also imposed regulations on labor policies. He was not the libertarian dream you want him to be.

The only reason Coolidge even permitted the formation of unions was to placate the actual Roosevelt Republicans. The man himself was a pretty committed libertarian.

You, again, ignore the fact that Coolidge adopted nationalist policies in the vein of Hamilton or Roosevelt throughout his Presidency.

Except he didn't. He threw a few bones to the Rooseveltians during his nomination speech, but only to keep them from fleeing the Party.

But do tell: what government programs did he champion? Show me evidence of one.

Immigration Act? Nationalist policies were rampant throughout the '20s.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant ().  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this, by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great terrible Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.

LOL using a quote from one of our nation's first enthusiastic supporters of a strong central government.

Precisely. I am convinced that Roosevelt Republican has no real belief system. He is the GOP Bill Clinton.

I support strong economic management by the federal government. That is well understood by now. I'm a Republican built in the mold of Hamilton, Roosevelt, Coolidge.

Um, Roosevelt Republican? Calvin Coolidge was against a strong Federal role in any sort of economic management.

"The business of government, is business."-- Calvin Coolidge. Enough said.

"The business of the American people is business."

Get your facts straight.

Either way, Coolidge promoted pro-business policies that are directly in line with my ideology. Pro-business, socially libertarian, non-interventionist.

But he wasn't a corporatist. Coolidge took a hands-off approach to the economy, cutting military spending and ending Harding's farm subsidies within his first year in office. The man most certainly did not believe the Federal government had a role to play in economics.

Exactly. I am strictly anti-corporatist, hence ROOSEVELT REPUBLICAN. Coolidge certainly did believe the government had a role to play in economics, albeit not one of anti-growth and corporate/individual handouts.

Are you stupid? Please, just answer my question without fuss. Are you stupid?

The man imposed economic controls during World War I (as Governor). He was certainly open to the idea of economic management. Are YOU stupid?

Do you realize that a war economy is not the same as a peacetime economy. and one of the reasons libertarians detest war is because it forces artificial government controls over the economy? That has nothing to do with ideology; it is the nature of war that requires such controls.

He also imposed regulations on labor policies. He was not the libertarian dream you want him to be.

The only reason Coolidge even permitted the formation of unions was to placate the actual Roosevelt Republicans. The man himself was a pretty committed libertarian.

You, again, ignore the fact that Coolidge adopted nationalist policies in the vein of Hamilton or Roosevelt throughout his Presidency.

Except he didn't. He threw a few bones to the Rooseveltians during his nomination speech, but only to keep them from fleeing the Party.

But do tell: what government programs did he champion? Show me evidence of one.

Well he didn't champion it, but he did sign Immigration Act of 1924, although he did express reservations over it.
It is one of my few gripes about an otherwise great president.

Sure, but that had nothing to do with progressivism (or Roosevelt) and everything to do with the nationalistic Republican base.

Coolidge was always aligned with the progressive wing of the Republican Party. He never left the party because the Progressives were not going to challenge him (as he was, obviously, an ally). The "nationalistic Republican base", however, has everything to do with policies supported by prominent figures such as Roosevelt and Coolidge himself.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant ().  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this, by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great terrible Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.

LOL using a quote from one of our nation's first enthusiastic supporters of a strong central government.

Precisely. I am convinced that Roosevelt Republican has no real belief system. He is the GOP Bill Clinton.

I support strong economic management by the federal government. That is well understood by now. I'm a Republican built in the mold of Hamilton, Roosevelt, Coolidge.

Um, Roosevelt Republican? Calvin Coolidge was against a strong Federal role in any sort of economic management.

"The business of government, is business."-- Calvin Coolidge. Enough said.

"The business of the American people is business."

Get your facts straight.

Either way, Coolidge promoted pro-business policies that are directly in line with my ideology. Pro-business, socially libertarian, non-interventionist.

But he wasn't a corporatist. Coolidge took a hands-off approach to the economy, cutting military spending and ending Harding's farm subsidies within his first year in office. The man most certainly did not believe the Federal government had a role to play in economics.

Exactly. I am strictly anti-corporatist, hence ROOSEVELT REPUBLICAN. Coolidge certainly did believe the government had a role to play in economics, albeit not one of anti-growth and corporate/individual handouts.

Are you stupid? Please, just answer my question without fuss. Are you stupid?

The man imposed economic controls during World War I (as Governor). He was certainly open to the idea of economic management. Are YOU stupid?

Do you realize that a war economy is not the same as a peacetime economy. and one of the reasons libertarians detest war is because it forces artificial government controls over the economy? That has nothing to do with ideology; it is the nature of war that requires such controls.

He also imposed regulations on labor policies. He was not the libertarian dream you want him to be.

The only reason Coolidge even permitted the formation of unions was to placate the actual Roosevelt Republicans. The man himself was a pretty committed libertarian.

You, again, ignore the fact that Coolidge adopted nationalist policies in the vein of Hamilton or Roosevelt throughout his Presidency.

Except he didn't. He threw a few bones to the Rooseveltians during his nomination speech, but only to keep them from fleeing the Party.

But do tell: what government programs did he champion? Show me evidence of one.

Well he didn't champion it, but he did sign Immigration Act of 1924, although he did express reservations over it.
It is one of my few gripes about an otherwise great president.

Sure, but that had nothing to do with progressivism (or Roosevelt) and everything to do with the nationalistic Republican base.

Coolidge was always aligned with the progressive wing of the Republican Party. He never left the party because the Progressives were not going to challenge him (as he was, obviously, an ally). The "nationalistic Republican base", however, has everything to do with policies supported by prominent figures such as Roosevelt and Coolidge himself.

Wrong. Harding was the progressive candidate of choice; and Harding selected Coolidge as a running mate precisely because he appealed to the isolationist and nationalistic base.

Are you kidding me? Both candidates appealed to the isolationists and nationalists. It's what they campaigned on. Coolidge continued the same policies even after winning his own term. As for Harding, the man who gave the nominating speech for Taft-- far less progressive.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant ().  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this, by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great terrible Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.

LOL using a quote from one of our nation's first enthusiastic supporters of a strong central government.

Precisely. I am convinced that Roosevelt Republican has no real belief system. He is the GOP Bill Clinton.

I support strong economic management by the federal government. That is well understood by now. I'm a Republican built in the mold of Hamilton, Roosevelt, Coolidge.

Um, Roosevelt Republican? Calvin Coolidge was against a strong Federal role in any sort of economic management.

"The business of government, is business."-- Calvin Coolidge. Enough said.

"The business of the American people is business."

Get your facts straight.

Either way, Coolidge promoted pro-business policies that are directly in line with my ideology. Pro-business, socially libertarian, non-interventionist.

But he wasn't a corporatist. Coolidge took a hands-off approach to the economy, cutting military spending and ending Harding's farm subsidies within his first year in office. The man most certainly did not believe the Federal government had a role to play in economics.

Exactly. I am strictly anti-corporatist, hence ROOSEVELT REPUBLICAN. Coolidge certainly did believe the government had a role to play in economics, albeit not one of anti-growth and corporate/individual handouts.

Are you stupid? Please, just answer my question without fuss. Are you stupid?

The man imposed economic controls during World War I (as Governor). He was certainly open to the idea of economic management. Are YOU stupid?

Do you realize that a war economy is not the same as a peacetime economy. and one of the reasons libertarians detest war is because it forces artificial government controls over the economy? That has nothing to do with ideology; it is the nature of war that requires such controls.

He also imposed regulations on labor policies. He was not the libertarian dream you want him to be.

The only reason Coolidge even permitted the formation of unions was to placate the actual Roosevelt Republicans. The man himself was a pretty committed libertarian.

You, again, ignore the fact that Coolidge adopted nationalist policies in the vein of Hamilton or Roosevelt throughout his Presidency.

Except he didn't. He threw a few bones to the Rooseveltians during his nomination speech, but only to keep them from fleeing the Party.

But do tell: what government programs did he champion? Show me evidence of one.

Well he didn't champion it, but he did sign Immigration Act of 1924, although he did express reservations over it.
It is one of my few gripes about an otherwise great president.

Sure, but that had nothing to do with progressivism (or Roosevelt) and everything to do with the nationalistic Republican base.

Coolidge was always aligned with the progressive wing of the Republican Party. He never left the party because the Progressives were not going to challenge him (as he was, obviously, an ally). The "nationalistic Republican base", however, has everything to do with policies supported by prominent figures such as Roosevelt and Coolidge himself.

Wrong. Harding was the progressive candidate of choice; and Harding selected Coolidge as a running mate precisely because he appealed to the isolationist and nationalistic base.

Are you kidding me? Both candidates appealed to the isolationists and nationalists. It's what they campaigned on. Coolidge continued the same policies even after winning his own term. As for Harding, the man who gave the nominating speech for Taft-- far less progressive.

Nope. Harding, despite his pledge for a "return to normalcy", had been a huge supporter of the progressive income tax while a newspaper editor and pushed for government regulation of the mail industry. He chose Coolidge as a bone to the conservatives.

HE didn't choose anything. Harding and Coolidge were nominated by convention delegates.

But fine, take an example of something Harding advocated as a 22 year old and make that out to be his entire political career and ideology. Do you have any idea how ridiculous you are being?

Warren G. Harding was the conservative counterpart to the more Progressive Calvin Coolidge. You clearly have no understanding of the prominent and dominant factions within the Republican Party in the Fourth Party System.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant ().  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this, by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

Certainly, but that is a dangerous attitude. It's that thinking which got us wound up in this mess in the first place. Like the great terrible Alexander Hamilton said, when you use the government to confirm your rights to YOU, you only limit them for yourself.

LOL using a quote from one of our nation's first enthusiastic supporters of a strong central government.

Precisely. I am convinced that Roosevelt Republican has no real belief system. He is the GOP Bill Clinton.

I support strong economic management by the federal government. That is well understood by now. I'm a Republican built in the mold of Hamilton, Roosevelt, Coolidge.

Um, Roosevelt Republican? Calvin Coolidge was against a strong Federal role in any sort of economic management.

"The business of government, is business."-- Calvin Coolidge. Enough said.

"The business of the American people is business."

Get your facts straight.

Either way, Coolidge promoted pro-business policies that are directly in line with my ideology. Pro-business, socially libertarian, non-interventionist.

But he wasn't a corporatist. Coolidge took a hands-off approach to the economy, cutting military spending and ending Harding's farm subsidies within his first year in office. The man most certainly did not believe the Federal government had a role to play in economics.

Exactly. I am strictly anti-corporatist, hence ROOSEVELT REPUBLICAN. Coolidge certainly did believe the government had a role to play in economics, albeit not one of anti-growth and corporate/individual handouts.

Are you stupid? Please, just answer my question without fuss. Are you stupid?

The man imposed economic controls during World War I (as Governor). He was certainly open to the idea of economic management. Are YOU stupid?

Do you realize that a war economy is not the same as a peacetime economy. and one of the reasons libertarians detest war is because it forces artificial government controls over the economy? That has nothing to do with ideology; it is the nature of war that requires such controls.

He also imposed regulations on labor policies. He was not the libertarian dream you want him to be.

The only reason Coolidge even permitted the formation of unions was to placate the actual Roosevelt Republicans. The man himself was a pretty committed libertarian.

You, again, ignore the fact that Coolidge adopted nationalist policies in the vein of Hamilton or Roosevelt throughout his Presidency.

Except he didn't. He threw a few bones to the Rooseveltians during his nomination speech, but only to keep them from fleeing the Party.

But do tell: what government programs did he champion? Show me evidence of one.

Well he didn't champion it, but he did sign Immigration Act of 1924, although he did express reservations over it.
It is one of my few gripes about an otherwise great president.

Sure, but that had nothing to do with progressivism (or Roosevelt) and everything to do with the nationalistic Republican base.

Coolidge was always aligned with the progressive wing of the Republican Party. He never left the party because the Progressives were not going to challenge him (as he was, obviously, an ally). The "nationalistic Republican base", however, has everything to do with policies supported by prominent figures such as Roosevelt and Coolidge himself.

Wrong. Harding was the progressive candidate of choice; and Harding selected Coolidge as a running mate precisely because he appealed to the isolationist and nationalistic base.

Are you kidding me? Both candidates appealed to the isolationists and nationalists. It's what they campaigned on. Coolidge continued the same policies even after winning his own term. As for Harding, the man who gave the nominating speech for Taft-- far less progressive.

HE didn't choose anything. Harding and Coolidge were nominated by convention delegates.

But fine, take an example of something Harding advocated as a 22 year old and make that out to be his entire political career and ideology. Do you have any idea how ridiculous you are being?

Warren G. Harding was the conservative counterpart to the more Progressive Calvin Coolidge. You clearly have no understanding of the prominent and dominant factions within the Republican Party in the Fourth Party System.

Harding did support the high protective tariff or at least did nothing to stop fellow Republicans from pushing for it. Not sure about Coolidge though.

Coolidge kicked all those who wanted to lower tariffs off of the Trade Board.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Einzige, please read more about 1920s American economic policies and then come bicker with me. This is entirely unreasonable.

At least try and figure out the various political factions within the GOP in this era.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Einzige, please read more about 1920s American economic policies and then come bicker with me. This is entirely unreasonable.

At least try and figure out the various political factions within the GOP in this era.

Concession accepted.

Not a concession. You have demonstrated a lack of knowledge. I can't argue with a pull-string doll all night. You know NOTHING about Coolidge.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Einzige, please read more about 1920s American economic policies and then come bicker with me. This is entirely unreasonable.

At least try and figure out the various political factions within the GOP in this era.

Concession accepted.

Not a concession. You have demonstrated a lack of knowledge. I can't argue with a pull-string doll all night. You know NOTHING about Coolidge.

And you're the one arguing that he championed government economic intervention. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

You deny him supporting additional labor regulations, increased tariffs, and immigration restrictions?

[Alexander Hamilton]

Einzige, please read more about 1920s American economic policies and then come bicker with me. This is entirely unreasonable.

At least try and figure out the various political factions within the GOP in this era.

Concession accepted.

Not a concession. You have demonstrated a lack of knowledge. I can't argue with a pull-string doll all night. You know NOTHING about Coolidge.

And you're the one arguing that he championed government economic intervention. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

You deny him supporting additional labor regulations, increased tariffs, and immigration restrictions?

Of the three, immigration restrictions were the only one he supported. Harding signed off on the tariff, and he was neutral on labor issues.

Wrong. Wrong, wrong, WRONG. Coolidge raised tariffs many times, he booted the anti-tariff members off the Trade Commission, he advocated tariffs to protect agriculture as an alternative to defeat Congress' farm support bills, and certainly wasn't neutral on labor laws he championed.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Einzige, please read more about 1920s American economic policies and then come bicker with me. This is entirely unreasonable.

At least try and figure out the various political factions within the GOP in this era.

Concession accepted.

Not a concession. You have demonstrated a lack of knowledge. I can't argue with a pull-string doll all night. You know NOTHING about Coolidge.

And you're the one arguing that he championed government economic intervention. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

You deny him supporting additional labor regulations, increased tariffs, and immigration restrictions?

Of the three, immigration restrictions were the only one he supported. Harding signed off on the tariff, and he was neutral on labor issues.

In defense of Einzige it could be argued that Harding and Coolidge were deficit hawks and that in order to make up for reductions in the income tax tariffs would have to be raised to generate federal revenue. Afterall, who would you rather take money from? Your citizens or your competitors?

I don't consider Coolidge to be a libertarian, but I don't think there is enough evidence to imply he was a champion of government interventionism. Though I have to say I can kind of see how you could see similarities between him, Hamilton, and Roosevelt.

Interventionism to a degree, obviously. Coolidge, like me, would oppose this barbaric stimulus or the atrocious bailouts. Pro-business policies, however, often demand a bit of intervention. Obviously he fought against increased taxes and deficit spending, as I do. Coolidge's economic policies were strikingly similar to Hamilton's, Clay's, McKinley's, Roosevelt's, etc. Einzige just refuses to acknowledge historical fact because it undermines his entire political philosophy.

[Alexander Hamilton]

And in my defense, I'm not anywhere as well versed in 1920's GOP politics as I am in politics circa 1932 onward.

It's one of my favorite decades.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Coolidge a Progressive? lol For once I agree with Einzige. Neither Harding nor Coolidge were progressive.

Einzige, please read more about 1920s American economic policies and then come bicker with me. This is entirely unreasonable.

At least try and figure out the various political factions within the GOP in this era.

Concession accepted.

Not a concession. You have demonstrated a lack of knowledge. I can't argue with a pull-string doll all night. You know NOTHING about Coolidge.

And you're the one arguing that he championed government economic intervention. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

You deny him supporting additional labor regulations, increased tariffs, and immigration restrictions?

The last two were actually considered Conservative positions at the time. Roosevelt was for Free Trade and many of his progressive supported his position on that issue. So Hamilton, you yourself just actually made the case the Coolidge was not of the same mold as TR. As for Hamilton, that is true, but Keep in mind Hamilton wanted a commercial economy based of trade and industry rather then agriculutre. And he supported Tariffs, and a National Bank to get it done. But I doubt he would have supported the state enough to come close to a Progressive. Faulty characterization on your part.

No, Yankee. Unsurprisingly, you are wrong. You must not have even read Einzige's post. It doesn't matter what they were considered, the fact is, Coolidge supported them, which Einzige still denies. I did no frame those particular issues as Progressive (though labor regulations certainly were). Coolidge allied himself with the progressive wing of the Republican Party. Roosevelt, also, supported the same immigration restrictions, labor regulations, and other economic measures of intervention such as tariffs. In fact, the tariffs supported b roosevelt, Coolidge, harding, McKinley, etc. were one of the most pivotal reasons in the Republican Party's 1912 split-- Taft had lowered tariffs.

Now if Mechaman still wants to agree with you, he has a right to ignore history. But I'm sure most people who don't care to see the truth about the great man Calvin Coolidge will recognize his actual political positions on the issues of the '20s.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Coolidge a Progressive? lol For once I agree with Einzige. Neither Harding nor Coolidge were progressive.

Einzige, please read more about 1920s American economic policies and then come bicker with me. This is entirely unreasonable.

At least try and figure out the various political factions within the GOP in this era.

Concession accepted.

Not a concession. You have demonstrated a lack of knowledge. I can't argue with a pull-string doll all night. You know NOTHING about Coolidge.

And you're the one arguing that he championed government economic intervention. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

You deny him supporting additional labor regulations, increased tariffs, and immigration restrictions?

The last two were actually considered Conservative positions at the time. Roosevelt was for Free Trade and many of his progressive supported his position on that issue. So Hamilton, you yourself just actually made the case the Coolidge was not of the same mold as TR. As for Hamilton, that is true, but Keep in mind Hamilton wanted a commercial economy based of trade and industry rather then agriculutre. And he supported Tariffs, and a National Bank to get it done. But I doubt he would have supported the state enough to come close to a Progressive. Faulty characterization on your part.

No, Yankee. Unsurprisingly, you are wrong. You must not have even read Einzige's post. It doesn't matter what they were considered, the fact is, Coolidge supported them, which Einzige still denies. I did no frame those particular issues as Progressive (though labor regulations certainly were). Coolidge allied himself with the progressive wing of the Republican Party. Roosevelt, also, supported the same immigration restrictions, labor regulations, and other economic measures of intervention such as tariffs. In fact, the tariffs supported b roosevelt, Coolidge, harding, McKinley, etc. were one of the most pivotal reasons in the Republican Party's 1912 split-- Taft had lowered tariffs.

Now if Mechaman still wants to agree with you, he has a right to ignore history. But I'm sure most people who don't care to see the truth about the great man Calvin Coolidge will recognize his actual political positions on the issues of the '20s.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Coolidge a Progressive? lol For once I agree with Einzige. Neither Harding nor Coolidge were progressive.

Einzige, please read more about 1920s American economic policies and then come bicker with me. This is entirely unreasonable.

At least try and figure out the various political factions within the GOP in this era.

Concession accepted.

Not a concession. You have demonstrated a lack of knowledge. I can't argue with a pull-string doll all night. You know NOTHING about Coolidge.

And you're the one arguing that he championed government economic intervention. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

You deny him supporting additional labor regulations, increased tariffs, and immigration restrictions?

The last two were actually considered Conservative positions at the time. Roosevelt was for Free Trade and many of his progressive supported his position on that issue. So Hamilton, you yourself just actually made the case the Coolidge was not of the same mold as TR. As for Hamilton, that is true, but Keep in mind Hamilton wanted a commercial economy based of trade and industry rather then agriculutre. And he supported Tariffs, and a National Bank to get it done. But I doubt he would have supported the state enough to come close to a Progressive. Faulty characterization on your part.

No, Yankee. Unsurprisingly, you are wrong. You must not have even read Einzige's post. It doesn't matter what they were considered, the fact is, Coolidge supported them, which Einzige still denies. I did no frame those particular issues as Progressive (though labor regulations certainly were). Coolidge allied himself with the progressive wing of the Republican Party. Roosevelt, also, supported the same immigration restrictions, labor regulations, and other economic measures of intervention such as tariffs. In fact, the tariffs supported b roosevelt, Coolidge, harding, McKinley, etc. were one of the most pivotal reasons in the Republican Party's 1912 split-- Taft had lowered tariffs.

Now if Mechaman still wants to agree with you, he has a right to ignore history. But I'm sure most people who don't care to see the truth about the great man Calvin Coolidge will recognize his actual political positions on the issues of the '20s.

lol. TR was a free trader. I have sources that can back that up. He may not have lowered them as President but he did support that as an eventuall goal. Even William McKinely had jumped on the Free Trade bandwagon at that point as evidenced by his remarks at the Exibition in Buffalo just before he was shot.

You are right in that Coolidge aligned with the Progressives in his early years but its clear he had strict limits to just how progressive he was. For instance he beleived most social reforms and spending initaitives should take place at the state level. This amount of Federalism would be abhorrent to Progressives. Also keep in mind that Progressivism had changed from 1912 to 1924. That was largely due to Personality. In 1912, they were led by TR and thus reflected his beleifs. But in 1924, they were led by Bob LaFollete and thus several positions had become more reflective of him espcially the movement towards a pacifist foriegn policy. There was yet a second split btw Conservatives and Progressives, this time in 1922 and it led to severre losses for the GOP in Congress. I highly doubt Coolidge was anything close to a Progressive at this point, especially after he refused to follow the Progressives out of the GOP in 1912.  Finally you keep pointing to a few issues as proof that he was a Progressive. You also must keep in mind that he was a deficit hawk, he cut taxes, reduced debt, and promoted private enterprise as opposed to Gov't intervention. He may not have been a Libertarian but he definately wasn't a Progressive.

And you are completely missing my point. You have gotten involved in a debate that never involved you and began spewing information irrelevant to the debate. This debate was about my policies and those of Hamilton, Roosevelt, and Coolidge, and their distinct economic similarities that formed the underlying basis of their ideology, which Einzige continually disputed despite enormous historical evidence to the contrary.

Between 1912 and 1924, Progressive Republicans did not change. What happened was the splinter between the Progressive Republicans and the LaFollette Progressives. This was a movement away from nationalism and towards socialism.

Roosevelt and McKinley were not free traders in the slightest. That is misinformation on your part. Again, in order to take part in this debate you must remember that we are not comparing Coolidge to Roosevelt, but both to myself and Hamilton as well. I am a deficit hawk and believe in lower taxes. Yes, that places me very close to the pro-business positions of the Coolidge administration. Coolidge was an ardent nationalist on economic issues and a federalist/libertarian on social ones, just like Alexander Hamilton (and myself). Also, when you mention the split between the Progressives and the Republicans you forget to mention that Coolidge was able to keep those Progressives mostly within his electoral coalition (and for good reason) and also highlight the "pacifist" policies of LaFollette and but forget to mention that the "return to normalcy" marked a complete 180 from Wilson's interventionism and worked to bring about an isolationist period. Coolidge even signed the anti-war pact along with Germany, Britain, and others, though it was purely symbolic, he still took part.

Yankee, I do not claim that Coolidge was a 100% Progressive but the point is that he was aligned with them and supported some of their policies and that if you do read this whole discussion, you hear Einzige claim that Coolidge was the conservative to Harding as the progressive, which is false. The Republican Party's dominant faction post-1912 was, for obvious reasons, the conservatives. The Progressives were forced to take somewhat of a backseat, although due to their sheer size they held immense power. For that reason, Roosevelt was initially going to be the Republican nominee in 1920 as a reward for his strong campaigning for Republicans during the Wilson era, which helped Progressives and conservatives alike. As a former President, he was the only one with this capability.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Is anyone suprised by the result of the vote?  (I dont feel like reading 44 pages of replies.)

I must say I was surprised, pleasantly surprised.

not surprised. Gay marriage is not popular, even in liberal territory. I'm curious to see if the liberal theory: "it's a question of time because young voters are more gay-friendly" will work. It's based on the fact that young people will not change their mind in future.

Have you ever heard of prop 22? It was a gay marriage ban passed in California in 2000. Guess how much it passed by? It passed by slightly more than a 22 point margin in hippie, tree huggin, librul California. In 2008 it passed by only a 5 point margin. Why will that trend not continue?

Here is a nice little comparison between the two votes. Have fun. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-2008election-prop8prop22,0,333635.htmlstory

I hate to say this, but the comparison is meaningless.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Is anyone suprised by the result of the vote?  (I dont feel like reading 44 pages of replies.)

I must say I was surprised, pleasantly surprised.

not surprised. Gay marriage is not popular, even in liberal territory. I'm curious to see if the liberal theory: "it's a question of time because young voters are more gay-friendly" will work. It's based on the fact that young people will not change their mind in future.

Have you ever heard of prop 22? It was a gay marriage ban passed in California in 2000. Guess how much it passed by? It passed by slightly more than a 22 point margin in hippie, tree huggin, librul California. In 2008 it passed by only a 5 point margin. Why will that trend not continue?

Here is a nice little comparison between the two votes. Have fun. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-2008election-prop8prop22,0,333635.htmlstory

I hate to say this, but the comparison is meaningless.

And why would that be?

Probably because one was a law and one an amendment. And I would agree with that argument if it wasn't for the CA Supreme Court transforming the situation. Nevertheless, one was a vote on a hypothetical, the other on a concrete concept.

And you think people saw a difference? LOL

Probably not if the CA Supreme Court had not bothered to point it out to them fairly clearly.

Or if it wasn't titled on the ballot "eliminate the right"...

For some reason, I think people much a much harder time "eliminating rights" than simply banning gay marriage outright.