DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on April 01, 2015, 10:20:39 AM
-
(http://s22.postimg.org/ietapec0x/Mark_Twain.jpg)
-
During nearly all of Mark Twain's life, there was exactly ONE Democratic president.
I bet you cannot even name him.
-
So...is the attempted implication here that since it was predominantely non-Democrat presidents, during "nearly all" of Twain's life, then he must have been referring to any and every politician not Democrat?? Seriously??
-
One Republican Mark Twain really didn't like was Teddy Roosevelt.
But was he really a Wilson supporter?
This is a good quote , regardless of party.
Lord Acton was right, and frequent changes is the best we can do.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1d/Picture_of_John_Dalberg-Acton%2C_1st_Baron_Acton.jpg/250px-Picture_of_John_Dalberg-Acton%2C_1st_Baron_Acton.jpg)
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dalberg-Acton,_1st_Baron_Acton
-
Mark Twain was opposed to the Spanish-American War and opposed to the US mistreatment of the advocates for Cuban, Filipino and Puerto Rican independence. he was especially opposed to the torture of Filipinos by the Marines. He was against the US becoming an imperial power.
He died in 1910. He said that he came in with Halley's Comet in 1835 and expected to go out with it in 1910, and that is what happened.
I do not think that disliking TR made him automatically an ally of Wilson, but Wilson was not elected until 1912.
There was just ONE Democratic president between the Civil War and 1910 and it was not Wilson.
Here is what Mark Twain said about him: "Of all our public men of today he stands first in my reverence & admiration, & the next one stands two-hundred-&-twenty-fifth. He is the only statesman we have now. ... XXXXXXXX drunk is a more valuable asset to this country than the whole batch of the rest of our public men sober. He is high-minded; all his impulses are great & pure & fine. I wish we had another of this sort."
- Letter to Jean Clemens, 19 June 1908
Now you and sirs will have to look it up, won't you?
-
Why....you still haven't answered my question as to its relevence, in the context of the original quote that started the thread
-
http://www.twainquotes.com/ClevelandGrover.html
This is hilarious.
As a lot of Twain writing is.
-
Why....you still haven't answered my question as to its relevence, in the context of the original quote that started the thread
Poor sirs, he thinks that my purpose in life is to answer his exceedingly dumbass questions.
It isn't.
-
Never claimed it was, either.
Poor professor deflection, still arguing points, no one is making, in order to avoid points that are being made.
-
the quote says "politicians"
most politicians are not presidents
in fact a tiny tiny tiny percentage are ever president
next?
-
So True.....which is what prompted the question as to the relevance of the response xo was making. Notice how much he's trying to dodge it. But I think its safe to assume, minus his clarifying it himself, that the reason he posted it was to imply that the predominant WH occupant, during his time, was rarely a Democrat, ergo, there must have been few Democrats overall, ergo, Twain must have been aiming his barbs at any and every other non-Democrat politician.
Given his track record, would that not be an accurate deduction as to the relevance of his original response?
-
During nearly all of Mark Twain's life, there was exactly ONE Democratic president.
I bet you cannot even name him.
Andrew Jackson?
-
Mark Twain made a number of disparaging remarks about Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall, New York City's Democratic machine, and some other corrupt poilicians who were democrats, but the times he lived in, called "The Gilded Age" were the heyday of Republican corruption.
As for all those "points" I am supposedly not answering, answer them for yourself, I am not here for your entertainment. You are not entertaining, as I have pointed out.
-
As for all those "points" I am supposedly not answering, answer them for yourself,
Minus any attempt upon yourself, I already have. The idea was to infer that Twain was aiming his initial comments to anyone not Democrat. In particular, he must have been emphasizing Republicans, not just politicians in general.
So glad we have you around to divine the real meaning of what people meant to say, vs what they actually say ::)
-
Mark Twain made a number of disparaging remarks about Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall, New York City's Democratic machine, and some other corrupt poilicians who were democrats, but the times he lived in, called "The Gilded Age" were the heyday of Republican corruption.
As for all those "points" I am supposedly not answering, answer them for yourself, I am not here for your entertainment. You are not entertaining, as I have pointed out.
He also was born in 1835 ,so grew to adulthood preceding the civil war, a time of severe Democratic corruption.
I interpret the quote as true because it is non-factional, it isn't good for any party or person to have easy access to power and little choice given the people.
Any party left without competition will fall to Lord Acton's axiom.
-
The influence of the government, Whig or Democrat, from 1835 to 1860, on the life of young Samuel Langhorne Clemons was minimal. This was before TV news and any sort of political activity such as we have today. His father does when he was young and he worked as a typesetter in a printshop. That was how he educated himself. He read extensively, and as any printer had to do, he learned how to read backwards and probably upside down as well. Clemons and his brother Orion, (pronounced OR-ee own, so people would not think he was Irish -O'Ryan) educated themselves. After a few weeks in a local militia at the beginning of the Civil War, he did the logical thing and did not head for Bull Run, Shiloh, or Vicksburg, he lit out for the Territories, since his brother was named secretary to the Territorial governor of Nevada. Clemons correctly surmised that defending Missouri from or for the Yankees or fighting for slavery was not worth dying for. The Whigs were every bit as corrupt as the Democrats: their thing was nominating old generals for president, the last one being Winfield Scott. James Polk was probably the least corrupt president of the 1800's. He did not even want to run for a second term. He promised to annex Texas, and did, and promised to settle the Oregon territory dispute, and he did that as well. Clemons made a lot of money as a Mississippi riverboat pilot, but the war ruined traffic on the river. He was offered a job piloting on the Missouri, but he knew that this was dangerous because of all the snags and sawyers, and he declined.
-
Ummm....ok. Reinforcing the point Twain was making, that ALL politicians need their diapers changed...including Democrats
-
The influence of the government, Whig or Democrat, from 1835 to 1860, on the life of young Samuel Langhorne Clemons was minimal. This was before TV news and any sort of political activity such as we have today. His father does when he was young and he worked as a typesetter in a printshop...............
So you want to say that he was unaware of the political climate , though his job required him to read the news every day?
-
What a guy!
Stephen Grover Cleveland (March 18, 1837 – June 24, 1908) was the 22nd and 24th President of the United States.[1] He was the winner of the popular vote for president three times—in 1884, 1888, and 1892—and was one of the two Democrats (alongside Woodrow Wilson) elected to the presidency in the era of Republican political domination dating from 1861 to 1933.
Cleveland was the leader of the pro-business Bourbon Democrats who opposed high tariffs, Free Silver, inflation, imperialism, and subsidies to business, farmers, or veterans. His crusade for political reform and fiscal conservatism made him an icon for American conservatives of the era.[2] Cleveland won praise for his honesty, self-reliance, integrity, and commitment to the principles of classical liberalism.[3] He relentlessly fought political corruption, patronage and bossism. Indeed, as a reformer his prestige was so strong that the like-minded wing of the Republican Party, called "Mugwumps," largely bolted the GOP presidential ticket and swung to his support in the 1884 election
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Cleveland
Whoops!
As his second term began, disaster hit the nation when the Panic of 1893 produced a severe national depression, which Cleveland was unable to reverse. It ruined his Democratic Party,...
There is no real steering wheel on the economy.
-
I mean that other than the Civil War, Twain's life was not much affected by anything the government did. The same was true for most people at that time. The federal government had little impact on the lives of citizens. It did not regulate anything, it did not pay anyone Social Security or Medicare. The main thing it did was to coin money. Paper money was actually issued by local banks.
-
He was affected enough to accurately conclude the need for frequent changing of politicians in power. And this is, by your own words, when they weren't such control freaks
-
................, when they weren't such control freaks
Hahahahaha!
Who knew at the time, how ever present the government would become after a century?
-
Really 8)
-
The one thing that Mark Twain was NOT was a radical Republican.
I do not know whom he voted for or even if he voted at all, but he was an intellectual and not at all popular in the South, because he was against slavery and failed as a good Missourian to defend the Slave State South.
In the presidential election of 1860, Lincoln finished last. Douglas won the most votes followed by Bell, the Constitutional Unionist. In the legislature, Breckenridge Democrats came out ahead. The legislature was about to vote to secede, but the Union Army took over the capitol in July 1860 before this happened.
Missouri was a slave state with only 9.7% slaves in the population. 110,000 Missourians fought for the Union, 30,000 for the Confederacy, and Samuel Langhorne Clemons lit out for the territories, ie Nevada. Clearly, he felt that neither side was worth dying for.
If sirs could provide examples of Mark Twain denouncing Democratic politicians, he could do so. I am sure that Twain was against all types of corruption. I think it is significant that after extensive travels, he did not return to postwar Missouri, but settled down in Elmira New York, and moved to Bridgeport Connecticut after his wife died.
I would say the odds that Mark Twain would have voted for a fatcat Mormoin like Mitt Romney would have been exceedingly small. He was a bit of an imperialist in his earlier writings, but by the time of the Spanish American War he was clearly against the war and its aftermath.
There is extensive information about him online.
-
The one thing that Mark Twain was NOT was a radical Republican.
Who claimed he was?? Nor am I claiming anything Twain was being specific about, outside of POLITICIANS (as in ALL).
You seem to be the one intent on making this about how corrupt everyone was, outside of Democrats, and how Twain must have been aiming his quote that started this tread, at everyone else, except Democrats. Given his original quote that started this thread, it's a forgone conclusion he would have never have supported a modern day Democrat for President. That's not to claim he'd have embraced someone like Romney or Bush, merely that he would have been more likely to
-
I have not said, at any point, that Democrats during Twain's time, were not corrupt. Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall was as corrupt as was possible and Tweed's downfall is known to any historian, though probably not to you.
But the Gilded Age was the heyday of Republican domination, and Twain was a great fan of Grover Cleveland, who was that Democratic president of whom you were apparently ignorant.
-
The famed Democrat President you kept hording is irrelvent to the point Twain was making about ALL politicians. YOU are the one that immediately tried to imply that Democrats weren't really the focus of Twain's quote that started this. Based on.....nothing more than your knee jerk defense of anything/everything Democrat
-
So somehow I was "hoarding" the identity of Grover Cleveland from you. Haw haw haw, that is a hoot.
If you are so damn stupid you could not find this bit of info, you probably have trouble dressing yourself as well.
If you have evidence that Mark Twain condemned Democrats for corruption, you could always present it.
-
So somehow I was "hoarding" the identity of Grover Cleveland from you.
Not at all....you were using it as your standard deflection, since it was completely irrelevent to the topic at hand
If you have evidence that Mark Twain condemned Democrats for corruption, you could always present it.
And there's the other tactic.....arguing a point no one is making. Never claimed Twain condemned Democrats alone. You're the one trying to defend them. I'm merely repeating what Twain clearly was referencing, the need for ALL politicians' diapers to be changed
-
He did not claim that politicians wore diapers.
He said that politicians, like diapers, needed to be changed regularly.
It is what is called a simile.
-
Good god, of course he wasn't being literal.....he was being rhetorical :o
-
Of course he was. You were the one who claimed that politicians wore diapers.
-
Professor literal strikes again....arguing a point I never made....in that I too was speaking rhetorically. What idiot would actually think that I believed politicians wore diapers? Oh wait, I believe we have a winner ::)
-
You should read the nonsense you write.
You said, and I quote:
" I'm merely repeating what Twain clearly was referencing, the need for ALL politicians' diapers to be changed."
If the politicians diapers need to be changed, that means they were wearing diapers.
-
And as you just helped demonstrate, what idiot would actually think I was referring to literal diapers?? Thank you for answering that question ::)
-
So in your mind, the politicians were wearing rhetorical diapers?
Twain did not say anything about politicians changing diapers.
You have comprehension problems or composition problems.
-
I realize the effort to dig yourself out of the idiot hole you made. By all means, keep trying, as it got pretty deep, in this thread
-
You cannot even comprehend your own posts.
That is pathetic.
-
Ahhh, more of that phenominal super power of being able to divine what other people meant to say, despite what they clearly have said/inferred ::)
Naaa....pathetic is thinking anyone, not just me, would literally believe that politicians wear diapers that need changed. Actually, more idiotic than pathetic...but hey, its your hole, dig however you want
-
...Just give it a rest. You're not contributing anything to this thread, outside of throwing immature insults. Focus on the topic, or pick another topic
-
...and no, that doesn't equate to telling you what you can and can't do, can or can't say. You're still free to do whatever you damn well want to do. I'm just trying to throw you a suggestive, if not recommended, lifeline. I'll try to follow it myself, since I appear to be responding to your insults with my own derrogatories
-
I don't see this quote by Twain as being partisan.
If he wanted this to be construed as being more against one party , he knew plenty of words that would have accomplished this clearly.
As a young newspaperman, Samuel Clemens had to observe a country on greased rails headed twards catastrophe, as an elder author and famous observer of the human condition he saw a country going to war for small cause and repeated bouts of corruption and reform.
Some of this time there was a dominant Democratic Party, some of the time there was a dominant Republican party.
So if he observes the virtue of change , perhaps it is because he is observing that a party being in power too long collects a lot of what a diaper left alone too long collects.
Suppose that the Democratic party were perfected , and as a result of this perfection took complete power with the full mandate of the people.
Where would the politically ambitious scoundrels go in the coming years?
Since scoundrels want power more than idealism, the party in power will attract them.
-
As a young newspaperman, Samuel Clemens had to observe a country on greased rails headed twards catastrophe, as an elder author and famous observer of the human condition he saw a country going to war for small cause and repeated bouts of corruption and reform.
Some of this time there was a dominant Democratic Party, some of the time there was a dominant Republican party.
=========================================================================
Correction: there was NEVER a dominant Republican Party before Lincoln. There was an occasionally dominant Whig Party There were four Whig presidents: William Henry Harrison, who died in office and John Tyler became president Tyler was expelled from the Party for his strong States Rights pro slavery views, Zachary Taylor was elected president and also died in office, leaving the Presidency to Millard Fillmore, the last Whig President. Lincoln, a railroad company lawyer, was a Whig, and dropped out of politics when the Whigs disbanded. Whigs were pro-industrial and urban and anti-immigrant and anti Catholic. The name Whig was used during the Revolution by the Patriots. In 1856, the Republican Party emerged from the remains of the northern Whig Party and nominated John C Frémont the explorer and son in law of Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton. The most Whiggish of the Whigs, Henry Clay, never managed to get elected, though he did get the nomination.
In Quincy, Illinois, the local Newspaper is called the "Quincy Herald-Whig", formerly the "Whig Independent".
Mark Twain considered running as an independent for Governor of NY, but dropped out due to the slanderous nature of campaigning.
(Photo courtesy of the Library of Congress)
Even when it comes to the game of politics, Twain doesn’t pull any punches. In his satirical account of being nominated for the position of Governor of New York and having to endure the smear campaign that seems to decide politics more than the actual views of the candidates, he ends with:
"By this time there had grown to be such a clamor for an "answer" to all the dreadful charges that were laid to me that the editors and leaders of my party said it would be political ruin for me to remain silent any longer. As if to make their appeal the more imperative, the following appeared in one of the papers the very next day:
BEHOLD THE MAN! — The Independent candidate still maintains Silence. Because he dare not speak. Every accusation against him has been amply proved, and they have been endorsed and re-endorsed by his own eloquent silence till at this day he stands forever convicted. Look upon your candidate, Independents! Look upon the Infamous Perjurer! the Montana Thief! the Body-Snatcher! Contemplate your incarnate Delirium Tremens! your Filthy Corruptionist! your Loath some Embracer! Gaze upon him — ponder him well — and then say if you can give your honest votes to a creature who has earned this dismal array of titles by his hideous crimes, and dares not open his mouth in denial of any one of them!
There was no possible way of getting out of it, and so, in deep humiliation, I set about preparing to "answer" a mass of baseless charges and mean and wicked falsehoods. But I never finished the task, for the very next morning a paper came out with a new horror, a fresh malignity, and seriously charged me with burning a lunatic asylum with all its inmates because it obstructed the view from my house. This threw me into a sort of panic. Then came the charge of poisoning my uncle to get his property, with an imperative demand that the grave should be opened. This drove me to the verge of distraction. On top of this I was accused of employing toothless and incompetent old relatives to prepare the food for the foundling hospital when I was warden. I was wavering — wavering. And at last, as a due and fitting climax to the shameless persecution that party rancor had inflicted upon me, nine little toddling children of all shades of color and degrees of raggedness were taught to rush on to the platform at a public meeting and clasp me around the legs and call me PA!
I gave up. I hauled down my colors and surrendered. I was not equal to the requirements of a Gubernatorial campaign in the State of New York, and so I sent in my withdrawal from the candidacy, and in bitterness of spirit signed it,
"Truly yours,
"Once a decent man, but now
"MARK TWAIN, I. P., M. T., B. S., D. T., F. C., and L. E
-
...In other words, the words that started this thread were directed at ALL politicians, DEMOCRATS included. Just because you pick one Democrat president, during Twain's tenure, doesn't then equate that he mainly was referring to all other parties, while giving Democrats a pass. There was no riddle buried in his quote, that only self appointed enlightened can see. There simply is what he said
-
Blah, blah, blah.
In New York in Twain's time, the Democratic Party was dominated by Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall in New York City. Twain visited NYC, but lived in Elmira, the home town of his wife.
Upstate New York was dominated by a Republican machine.
Hence, he chose to run as an Independent.
If you know of any place where he badmouths the Democratic Party in general, you could post it.
-
Right back atcha.....demonstrate where he specifically bad mouths the Republican party. Ball in your court
-
REPUBLICANS
I had been accustomed to vote for Republicans more frequently than for Democrats, but I was never a Republican and never a Democrat. In the community, I was regarded as a Republican, but I had never so regarded myself. As early as 1865 or '66 I had had this curious experience: that whereas up to that time I had considered myself a Republican, I was converted to a no-party independence by the wisdom of a rabid Republican. This was a man who was afterward a United States Senator, and upon whose character rests no blemish that I know of, except that he was the father of the William R. Hearst of to-day, and therefore grandfather of Yellow Journalism - that calamity of calamities.
- Autobiographical dictation, January 24, 1906
http://www.twainquotes.com/Republican.html
Mark Twain
“all democrats are insane, but not one of them knows it”
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/532723-all-democrats-are-insane-but-not-one-of-them-knows
Democrats and Republicans
All Democrats are insane, but not one of them know it; none but the Republicans and Mugwumps know it. All the Republicans are insane, but only the Democrats and Mugwumps can perceive it.
- Mark Twain
http://www.heartsandminds.org/humor/fundemrep.htm
Hahahahaha! how did that one get cut in half?
This is a pretty good article that makes a libertarian claim on Mark Twain, it isn't well written , but it is funny.
http://mises.org/library/mark-twains-radical-liberalism
and it quotes thusly,...As Clemens himself once wrote,
The mania for giving the Government power to meddle with the private affairs of cities or citizens is likely to cause endless trouble … and there is great danger that our people will lose that independence of thought and action which is the cause of much of our greatness, and sink into the helplessness of the Frenchman or German who expects his government to feed him when hungry, clothe him when naked … and, in time, to regulate every act of humanity from the cradle to the tomb, including the manner in which he may seek future admission to paradise.12
-
hehe....so in other words, his words that initiated this thread were once again, aimed at ALL politicians, including the professor's prescious democrats
-
prescious?
-
Oooo, the spelling nazi has returned. ::) You couldn't grasp the context, even with the mispelling? A language professor?? My apologies......the word is precious
-
One word and you blew it.
Who the Hell cares?
-
LOL...blew what? The context??