Bo,

Polk didn't protect minority rights, which is why I wouldn't use him or his quotes as part of an argument in favor of protecting minority rights. That was the original issue.

As to socialization, Polk came down emphatically on the wrong side of the two great moral issues which were under dispute during his presidency: slavery and the Mexican War. We're not talking about women's votes or vegetarianism here, relatively modern or at least twentieth-century moral issues. There were substantial numbers of people in the 1840s who opposed the expansion of slavery and who opposed the conquest of Mexican territory to accomplish it. Polk accomplished his agenda, which meant that Free Soilers and anti-war types failed to accomplish theirs.

Whether you want to use Polk as an example of an effective president is, of course, up to you. Give him all the credit you want! I am not entirely certain why you're objecting so strenuously to my representations of Polk.

As to the last who genuinely cared: I think maybe Carter? Much of the Reagan Revolution/Silent Majority thing was, as the name indicates, a response to a perception that society was bending over too far for a minority view, that the minority was oppressing in some way the majority. But that's getting off on another topic.

Carter may have cared - *may* - but when it came to Israel he certainly didn't, and for those pushes he made for the minority here they all failed pretty miserably. You can care about whatever you want but if you can't make anything happen it doesn't matter.

Oh Botox.

Carter of course brokered to most important peace accord in israeli history. But you knew that. Right.

I'll give Polk credit for at least being a 19th century President who did something. Most of them were worthless and deferred to Congress on everything.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UoV_AoBOv44/UHgddQICfCI/AAAAAAAAAzw/SNReBwUHmsk/s320/Puppy_Jack_Russell_Terrier.jpg

@Putin33
The others deferred to Congress because at the time, Congress was the important part of government. The President didn't need to have an agenda, as he only enforced laws and was commander in chief of the military. The President slowly became political - there was only one president who wasn't part of a political party, and only because there weren't any at the time. After that, Presidents became more powerful through skillful politics in times of crisis and as soon as President meant leader of his party, the party did everything in their power to give him power.

@Santa ... of course I knew that. That's the whole point. It was certainly not supportive of all parties in the agreement, though. Do you just enjoy assuming other people are wrong? And do you know that I'm a little young for botox?

@Putin ... Polk didn't do anything insanely significant. He got territory, and he helped the country, but he didn't do anything close to what, say, Lincoln did. He did as any President should, though - exactly as he campaigned for and was elected on and nothing more or less.

@Phil ... not really until Teddy Roosevelt did they get any serious thought as a political being. Lincoln's assassination probably scared some of them out of trying to do anything too drastic even when it was completely necessary for reconstruction.

How was making a lasting peace with Egypt not supportive of all parties?

It was lasting before the revolution. It probably won't be forever unless the USA decides to install someone again.

The Camp David Accords show us now that not even one of the most minority-minded Presidents in American history couldn't even stand up for the Palestinians. Not one bit.

"The others deferred to Congress because at the time, Congress was the important part of government. "

Oh I absolutely agree. Which is why I give credit to Polk for breaking with the milieu he was in. It took at least a modicum of courage to do so. The Whigs in particular were staunchly committed to Congressional supremacy and Party government. Jacksonian Democrats less so.

"Polk didn't do anything insanely significant. He got territory, and he helped the country, but he didn't do anything close to what, say, Lincoln did. He did as any President should, though "

I'm not saying he was a Lincoln (although had Lincoln did lasting damage to the power of the Presidency, it didn't recover until T.R). But you have to compare him to the Presidents of the era - Harrison (who died, not his fault), Tyler, Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, Taylor, even Van Buren & Jackson. He was superior to them all. Jackson, to his credit, was someone who tried to advance a new meaning of the Presidency. But he also ushered in the spoils system - a problem which preoccupied the country until well into the 20th century, and presided over the elimination of the National Bank. So I'd take Polk over Jackson also.

Now, Polk's achievements were not limited to his military success, a military campaign which was flawlessly carried out, I might add (I say this as someone who acknowledges the campaign was less than just). He also thoroughly defeated the Whigs on the tariff issue and internal improvements issue, which might not seem like much to us now but this was perhaps the singular most important issue of 19th century politics aside from the slavery issue of the Antebellum period. One of the reasons why he (and Jackson) were so hated by his opponents was because of their willingness to use the veto against bills for political reasons. The tradition had been only to use it if the President thought the bill was unconstitutional.

The supporters of the shutdown are playing the role of chaos monkey. http://techblog.netflix.com/2012/07/chaos-monkey-released-into-wild.html

"If your application can't tolerate an instance failure would you rather find out by being paged at 3am or when you're in the office and have had your morning coffee?
"

I hereby pledge to only vote for third parties and independents forever.

Except Libertarian, lol fuck that noise

Also, quoting Polk for legitimacy?

Lmao, Jesus Christ gunfighter you are so fucking far gone.

Whether you support the shutdown of the government is a fantastic litmus test for whether you have any shred of common sense or political morality.

I'll let you take a stab which side you think I mean.

"I hereby pledge to only vote for third parties and independents forever. "

You're part of the problem, then. Expect more shutdowns with more Teapartiers in power.

There are other third parties than the Tea Party.

A vote for a third party gets Republicans in power. Deny it if you wish.

My vote is going to go to the person I believe should be in Washington, not the party I believe should be in Washington.

Rubio, Cruz, Paul...Oh my!

Who you vote for directly affects which party controls the House of Congress and which party's agenda gets passed. Congressmen as individuals have little to no effect. Congressmen as a caucus get stuff done.

I don't get why people can't accept this fact.

Not in Indiana. It's gonna be a Republican whether I vote Republican or not. If the Tea Party wasn't dumb enough to vote out Richard Lugar in 2012 for Richard Mourdock who killed his own campaign by being an ultra-Christian moron in public, we'd have two Republicans in the Senate. Seven of our nine Representatives are Republicans and one of the Democrats comes from District 1 which always goes Democrat (proximity to Chicago makes that inevitable). The other Democrat is Andre Carson from Indy, and he took over for his grandmother Julia Carson. You should know that name; people in Indy definitely do.

Indiana has become very close in recent Presidential elections. Many states once considered "forever red" have come into play. Demographic changes cause changes in politics.

When did we start talking about the President?

Anyway, the head of this country shouldn't have a political affiliation. It sounds crazy, but he should be the person that everyone goes to, not the person that one side fights.

*********************
SYSTEM ERROR
*********************

The United States of America has encountered a problem and needs to close.

Would you like to re-start the United States of America in Safe Mode? (Recommended)

The system is down!

And, like everyone else, you forgo safe mode and continue to risk the expensive consequences for better graphics.

@Jamie - we are in safe mode. We are only funding *essential* functions of the government at this time. This is as it should be...

" It sounds crazy, but he should be the person that everyone goes to, not the person that one side fights."

It's not crazy, it's what most civilized countries have - parliamentary government.

But in our case, people who vote for 3rd parties are simply allowing the extreme right to destroy our country.

"We are only funding *essential* functions of the government at this time. This is as it should be..."

Krellin hates the military. Troops won't get their back-pay until the shutdown stops. I really hope Republicans keep cheering on the shutdown, and their own extinction.

I deny it Putin. I live in a state that is not in play. I live in the south, dude. Maybe if I go to a place that is actually in play I will change my mind. As it stands I wrote in a political statement in the 2012 presidential ballot since my vote was thrown away by the electoral college.