Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
Yeah, and Lincoln didn't sign the Emancipation Proclamation, and the Revolutionary War never happened - England just gave up their claim on us. Oh, and Kennedy was never shot, and Nixon didn't do it.
As long as we're rewriting history, why not do it in more than just economic areas?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
When was FDR's New Deal initiated?
When did the economy recover from the Depression?
When did the stock market crash?
When did it reach a new peak after the crash?
What was the average unemployment rate during FDR's Presidency?
If you begin to honestly look at the answers to those questions, your perseption may change.
|
Your verification that WWII, not the New Deal, was what propelled us out of the Great Depression was well done. I would also have included a comparison of unemployment in the US vs. the rest of the world in the wake of the New Deal to further demonstrate the accuracy of your opinion. With the benefit of historical perspective, it is ludicrous to cling to the claim that the New Deal did anything but worsen our economic woes.
That claim may, however, serve a purpose in distracting us from other aspects of Obama's performance:
U.S. sticks with Bush position on Bagram detainees | Reuters
Quote:
U.S. sticks with Bush position on Bagram detainees
Sat Feb 21, 2009 4:38am GMT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration on Friday told a federal judge it would not deviate from the Bush administration's position that detainees held at a U.S. air base in Afghanistan have no right to sue in U.S. courts.
In one of his first acts in office, President Barack Obama ordered the closure within one year of the Guantanamo Bay detention centre, which has been widely criticized by rights groups and foreign governments. About 245 people are currently held at Guantanamo, according to the Pentagon.
However, Obama has not yet decided what to do about the makeshift prison at the U.S. military base in Bagram, where the U.S. government is holding more than 600 prisoners, or whether to continue work on a $60 million prison complex there.
In late January, Obama directed a task force to study the government's overall detainee policy and report back to him in six months.
But the new administration faced a February 20 deadline to tell U.S. District Court Judge John Bates whether it would "refine" the Bush administration's position on four men being held at Bagram who have filed suit against their detention.
In a brief filing with the court on Friday, the Justice Department said it would stick to the previous government's position, which argued the four men -- who have been detained at Bagram for over six years -- had no right to challenge their detention in a U.S. court.
Barbara Olshansky, lead counsel for three of the four detainees and a visiting professor at Stanford Law School, said she was deeply disappointed that the Obama administration had decided to "adhere to a position that has contributed to making our country a pariah around the world for its flagrant disregard of people's human rights."
She said she hoped that the Obama administration was merely signalling it was still working on its position regarding the detainee issue...
|
CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!
Obama = Hitler!