Thank you for the history lesson!
Posted By: Zville MT on 2008-10-15
In Reply to: History of liberals and conservatives - ermt
That was hilarious! Especially the girlie-man part - boy, do I know some of those liberals! =)
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
I don't need a history lesson
I majored in it in college. I know there's discrimination and I know there are people who will discriminate in this election - either for or against Obama. But I think it's just a shame that you think Democrats are all above this. I live in a pretty hick town in southeastern Ohio where there are MANY Democrats who are voting McCain simply because they won't vote for a black man, plain and simple. And if you think that southeastern Ohio is the only place this kind of mentallity is, you'd be wrong. Discrimination is a terrible thing, but don't think it's just a Republican thing.
We need to do a little history lesson
Israel DID create the situation. Gaza is landlocked on all it's borders by Israel. They are not allowed in and out. Dr. Ron Paul had made a comment about concentration camp state; that is accurate. They have no means to get supplies in and out. A lack of supplies doesn't meant the leaders are starving their people. Supply and demand. Simply economics. Those who can afford things get them. That wouldn't be the case if the market was allowed to flow within Gaza, but that will never happen because as of now Israel has them in a full nelson and at their mercy. Mercy isn't something Israel abounds with. Barely anything is allowed in, so the supply is small. That lack of food you talk about to feed families isn't the fault of the leaders. Demand is high, supply is low, so yes, the rich SOBs running the joint will do what rich people do -- buy what they can afford because no one else can.
Hamas was created by Israel as a counter to the PLO. Much like we go about the world creating little counter-revolutions everywhere, so does Israel in the middle east. They create groups to do their bidding, using useful idiots who might actually BE extremists or just idealistic people, then when the group deteriorates away from their original purpose, Israel doesn't like that and starts crying that they're being persecuted by everyone around them. Poor little Israel can't get a break. Always getting pushed around by the big mean Arabs. Yeah, the Arabs with AK-47s that are 50 years old. You know, the same Israel who would just assume firebomb entire neighborhoods, killing anything and everything around. Mossad is active in every country in the world in the same fashion that the CIA is. Slapping around a bee's nest only invites them to sting you to death. That's what's occuring.
Hamas has eventually become a tool of the people around and has been elected into governments. Israel doesn't like that. It's a threat to their tyranny.
Extremism exists on all sides. Not just the poor idiots that get talked into blowing themselves up. Zionism has been a blight that has existed for generations and will continue to exist as an excuse to kill millions of innocent people in the name of God.
Recent history lesson....(sm)
Before Prop 8 gay marriage was legal in Calf.....therefore, a RIGHT. Prop 8 took that RIGHT away.
Dissent during WWII - A history lesson the right forgot....sm
Dissent during WWII - A history lesson the right forgot.
Posted by ChrisSal on Wednesday June 28, 2006 at 3:04 pm MST [ Send Story to Friend ]
One of the right’s favorite things to do is to compare the Iraq invasion to WWII and Saddam Hussein to Adolph Hitler. They claim that anyone who opposes the war is an appeaser, a terrorist sympathizer, or a traitor. This rhetoric is absolutely laughable not only because it is a huge stretch, but also because Republicans have obviously forgotten their own history.
Following the rejection of the League of Nations treaty in 1919, America developed a strong isolationist foreign policy. This was, perhaps, in response to the expansionist policies put in place by Teddy Roosevelt and the abject horror experienced in WWI. The citizenry wanted nothing more to do with sending its men to fight in foreign conflicts.
However, in 1935 Italy invaded Abyssina, which provided the first real test of America’s isolationist foreign policy. Congress passed the Neutrality Act, applying a mandatory ban on the shipment of arms from the U.S. to any combatant nation. FDR vehemently opposed the bill, but signed it under intense Congressional and public pressure. Two years later, Japan invaded China starting the Sino-Japanese war. As China was our ally and public opinion was favorable, FDR found ways to circumvent the Neutrality Act and assist China. Another two years later Germany invaded Czechoslovakia and began their conquest of Europe.
In May 1940 Germany overran the low countries, which left Britain open to invasion. By the end of 1940, Britain was financially ruined and the isolationist support was beginning to rapidly erode. 1941 brought about the Lend-Lease act and a more aggressive US posture in the Atlantic. Some claim, with some validity, that FDR provoked both Germany, with the US Naval presence in the Atlantic, and Japan, with support to China and crippling embargoes, particularly the oil embargo, into war. For the purpose of this discussion, that is neither here nor there.
As it became more apparent that the US involvement in WWII was going to deepen, a group named ‘America First’ organized to put pressure on FDR to keep America out of the war. “America First” garnered the support of people from across all shades of the political spectrum, but it was the GOP, who hated FDR and everything he did, that started the ball rolling. Twelve days after Pearl Harbor, Sen. Taft (R-OH) gave a speech to the Executive Club in Chicago. He railed against US intervention into WWII and spoke on the need for dissent, particularly during wartime.
As a matter of general principle, I believe there can be no doubt that criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government ... too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think that it will give some comfort to the enemy to know that there is such criticism. If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned, because the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country maintaining it a great deal more good than it will do the enemy, and will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur. - Sen. Taft (R-OH) December 19, 1942
So, the next time a rabid right winger claims that opposition to the war is unpatriotic and treasonous, remind them that as Germany rolled through Europe, Japan rolled through the Pacific, and before the fires of Pearl Harbor were extinguished it was conservative Republicans that took the lead in opposing FDR and the American entry into WWII.
I'm afraid my history lesson disqualifies your argument.
be a smartass and ask what has changed since his statement. I simply stated the obvious answer. What has changed is his MIND. If he didn't feel qualified, he would not have run. Evidently, 65,431,955 citizens agreed with this chane of heart. You cannot argue away the fact that GREAT presidents have held office with much less experience than Obama...and I look for him to be adding his name to that list of the BEST our country has to offer in short order.
I could take a lesson from you in cut and paste perhaps....
.
Thanks for the geography lesson. nm
nm.
You could take a lesson from your last four words.
Sarah Palin has infintely more class that you exhibited.
Pub lesson on how to win friends and
This must be some sort of new maverick style of reaching across the aisle and getting that bipartisan cooperation Americans are so anxious to see again...he just left out the part about looking at his opponents down two barrels of a shotgun.
He/she passed first lesson - lie.
NM
Thanks for the lesson on the constitution, however ...
There are TWO fundamental flaws in your premise.
1) The provision for Congress to declare War is for the purpose of STARTING a war where none exists. If "the other guy" starts one, no such declaration is needed nor appropriate. For example, if Canada invades, guess what? We're at war with Canada and Congress need not legislate to determine if this reality in fact exists. That is applicable to the present because SADDAM started a war in 1991 that was never concluded until the 2003 invasion. (There's been a Stability And Support Operation since then).
2) Congress DID declare war against Iraq. (redundantly, since as per #1 above, we already WERE at war.) There is nothing in The Constitution nor US Code that spells out specific language such declaration must utter. The fact that no resolution was passed with the words, "we declare war" or whatever you imagine it has to say, does not alter the inescapable fact they DID expressly vote to use military force against Iraq, specifically authorizing the invasion, in fact. You can claim that's not a declaration of war if you like but no honest person will join you.
The lesson I learned is that Sam has class...you are
3rd grade civic lesson
Posted by Don Rasmussen of CampaignForLiberty. com on 10/30/08
Special thanks to my mom for sending this along.
The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade. The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest. I decided we would have an election for a class president. We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote.
To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members. We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have. We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot.
The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids. I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support. I had never seen Olivia’s mother. The day arrived when they were to make their speeches. Jamie went first. He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place. He ended by promising to do his very best. Every one applauded. He sat down and Olivia came to the podium. Her speech was concise. She said, “If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream.” She sat down. The class went wild. “Yes! Yes! We want ice cream.
”
She surely would say more. She did not have to. A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn’t sure. Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it. She didn’t know. The class really didn’t care. All they were thinking about was ice cream. Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a land slide.
Every time Barack Obama opens his mouth he offers ice cream, and fifty percent of America reacts like nine year olds. They want ice cream. The other fifty percent know they’re going to have to feed the cow.
Just taking a page out of sam's lesson plan.
nm
The lesson here is...not everything people "believe" is correct! (nm)
xx
Learn to spell lesson first before you preach right
--
A civics lesson in the Constitution of the United States
Our country's highest governing document, The Constitution, has been our guiding light throughout most of this country's history and has provided protection and equal treatment of the citizens of this country for over 200 years. Now, some people are saying that it needs to be changed, amended or done away with because it is "old-fashioned" and out of date. What I think these people want done away with is just the parts that they don't find fits their particular needs or desires at the moment, in particular, it would seem, the 14th Amendment and its definition of who is a natural citizen of this country and eligible to run for the office of President of the United States.
Let's look at the constitutional requirements for President of the United States, the 14th Amendment which further defines a natural citizen and the law which fills in the gaps and makes the explanation whole and more easily understood.
Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
- Anyone born inside the United States
- Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
- Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
- Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
- Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
- Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
- Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
- A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.
The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was "declared" to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.
Some have theorized that because John McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person." Not eveyone agrees that this section includes McCain - but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
If one group of people who want to see Obama in office manage to do away with the 14th Amendment, then what is to keep another faction of people from doing away with any of the other constitutions? The Constitutions, its Amendments and Articles were put in place not to oppress the American people but to protect them and their rights and freedoms. What if all the men in the country decided they wanted to do away with the 19th Amendment? I bet we would see some really mad women in this country. Or how about doing away with the 22nd Amendment which limits the number of terms that a President can serve? Can we say "dictatorship?"
So enlighten us, I love to learn, the past 8 years were a hard lesson indeed.....nm
nm
History is history and opinion is opinion. You need to learn the difference.
x
I know history
Jews and Communism? Dont get the link there. Jews are definitely not communist and even in the old world, *Old Europe*, Austria, Germany, Poland, they were not communists..they were shop owners, jewelry makers, prosperous bankers..I have never met a communist or socialist jew and I grew up in NYC. To quote history, to remember history, to study history, does not mean we are contributing to terrorism..or aiding our enemies..that argument makes no sense. My major in college was history, minor anthropology. So, I pretty much know a bit about history. When people close their eyes to the truth, refuse to admit what is really happening or what type of administration is running the country, follow like sheep without question, that is when we are headed to ruin..not when there is free flow of ideas and talk of history, even quotes from the most evil of them..
What is history but....
windows that open and close. You are correct. However, you still want to beat Bush up for going to Iraq. We went. Nothing can change that. CLinton did not fight them in Somalia like he should...we cannot change that. However, the reason for not leaving Iraq post haste is as much about running yet again from Al Qaeda as it is about abandoning the rank and file Iraqi people. You have to understand that I have been in the military culture for a long time and have daily talks with someone who has been there and done that...he does not form my opinions and we have been known to butt heads...however, he does give me great insight. He knows who the enemy is. He has faced them.
It is history, kam...look it up.
Democrats are the ones who were against freeing the slaves. When Abe Lincoln and the Republicans(yes, he was a Republican) freed the slaves and after the war passed legislation to give them the vote, the Democrats immediately passed poll taxes and literacy tests so that the newly freed slaves would not be able to exercise their new right to vote. African Americans did not get clear right to vote until the Civil Rights Act in the 1960's, when enough Northern Democrats bucked the party and joined the Republicans to pass that act. It is all history, all fact. Look it up.
history and the
impact of Supreme Court decisions on the role of government? I guess it really has nothing to do with being VP. All you need is a rah-rah speech, a sense of victimization and a flag pin and you are good to go. Sorry, sometimes I think.
Here is a bit of history.
This election has me very worried. So many things to consider. About a year ago I would have voted for Obama. I have changed my mind three times since than. I watch all the news channels, jumping from one to another. I must say this drives my husband crazy. But, I feel if you view MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, you might get some middle ground to work with. About six months ago, I started thinking 'where did the money come from for Obama'. I have four daughters who went to College, and we were middle class, and money was tight. We (including my girls) worked hard and there were lots of student loans. I started looking into Obama's life.
Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California. He is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies. 'Barry' (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan. During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a 'round the world' trip. Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate's family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family. My question - Where did he get the money for this trip? Neither I, nor any one of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they where in college. When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York. It is at this time he wants everyone to call him Barack - not Barry. Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia? It's not cheap! to say the least. Where did he get money for tuition? Student Loans? Maybe. After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000. a year. Why Chicago? Why not New York? He was already living in New York.
By 'chance' he met Antoin 'Tony' Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria, and a real estate developer in Chicago. Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery this year. Rezko, was named 'Entrepreneur of the Decade' by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association'. About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School. Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School? Where did he get the money for Law School? More student loans? After Law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down. But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what? They represented 'Rezar' which Rezko's firm. Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago. In 20 03, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with 'seed money' for his U.S. Senate race. In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwoood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price). With ALL those Student Loans - Where did he get the money for the property? On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko.
Now, we have Obama running for President. Valerie Jarrett, was Michele Obama's boss. She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first. Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran! Do we see a pattern here? Or am I going crazy?
On May 10, 2008 The Times reported, Robert Malley advisor to Obama was 'sacked' after the press found out he was having regular contacts with 'Hamas', which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran. This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will 'Take care of things'.
Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that where born in Pakistan? They are in charge of all those 'small' Internet campaign contribution for Obama. Where is that money coming from? The poor and middle class in this country? Or could it be from the Middle East?
And the final bit of news. On September 7, 2008, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on 'This Week' with George Stephanapoulos. Obama on talking about his religion said, 'My Muslim faith'. When questioned, 'he made a mistake'. Some mistake!
All of the above information I got on line. If you would like to check it - Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times - Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times - September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.
Now the BIG question - If I found out all this information on my own, Why haven't all of our 'intelligent' members of the press been reporting this?
A phrase that keeps ringing in my ear - 'Beware of the enemy from within'!!!
Don't you know your history?
Yes there has always been a President Elect. They become President Elect after the electorates vote the 2nd week in December. Until then they are still just a citizen. However the media is so anxious to get Bush out (and I don't blame them), that they are not reporting the truth (although that doesn't surprise me from what I saw during the campaign).
However "Office of the President Elect" is new and invented (created out of nothing) by the O.
Here's what one of a hundred different sites says...
Obama Invents 'Office of the President-Elect'
Monday, November 10, 2008 12:54 PM
By: Jim Meyers Article Font Size
Barack Obama has created a stir by proclaiming that he heads “The Office of President-Elect” — an office that does not officially exist.
At his first news conference on Nov. 7, Obama stood at a podium bearing a sign that read: “Office of the President-Elect. Also, his Web site, Change.gov, bears the words “Office of the President-Elect” at the top of its home page.
Writer Larry Anderson referred to the “made-up little title” on the American Thinker Web site, and declared: “I nearly busted a gut ...
“Once again, [Obama] can’t wait to invest himself with the trappings of office.”
Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin wondered: “What other make-believe offices are they going to invent between now and Inauguration Day? I can’t ever recall in my lifetime any mention of such an office.”
Technically speaking, Obama may not even be the President-elect, according to the American Sentinel Web site.
“Megalomaniac Obama’s ego grows even more insufferable,” a weekend posting reads.
“Yes, he will be [president-elect]. But he’s not officially yet, until the Electoral College votes.
“The Constitution provides that on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, electors convene in their respective state capitals. It’s then that they formally elect the President of the United States, based on the general election results.”
Has anyone ever in history won by this
large of a margin & had the electoral college cast their votes opposite? No. You're grasping at straws.
Are you saying there's a different history?
x
How's this for a history........ sm
Scroll down to the bottom of the 5th page of this report and start reading. Ogden has argued against opposed the Child Internet Protection Act of 2000, challenged the Child Obsenity and Obscenity Enforcement Act and has represented numerous p*ornographic publishers in various causes. I think this is more than enough reason to oppose him as DAG.
http://www.scribd.com/full/11607068?access_key=key-18yr2u50t8o0sz54rbrl
You don't know your history very well, do you?
??
History speaks for itself. sm
You are simply ignorant of it and I said it was ONE of the reasons, not the only reason. Still trying to twist my words and worm out that you don't know history at all! Do you EVER watch the History Channel? Read historical books, not just college course books. I am through talking to you. People who can't even admit they are wrong and try to put the onus on someone else aren't worth talking to. Besides, you are so filled with hatred, I am surprised you didn't say how ugly Bush's daughters are just to throw that in just one more time.
A word on history.
Whatever it is that is being discussed concering global conflicts, when using history to clarify, define, explain, prove, whatever...I always try to remember that history has always been written and interpreted by the victor.
Ancient history
I dont care about ancient history. I care about right now in America. The fact is, the American people have spoken and they have stated with their vote that the Republican controlled congress was not working to their satisfaction or benefit and Bush's ideological based administration was heading American down the wrong track. I know it must be making many conservatives quite upset but majority rules in America, that is what democracy is, government by the majority of the people. So, accept it and move on. Democrats had to for the last 12 years and it was quite a hard pill to swallow at times. Finally, America will be on the right track and maybe we will be able to rebuild positive relations with the world and get out of Iraq before many more of our heroic soldiers are slaughtered for nothing but a bunch of lies.
You should care about history....
and should learn from it. Sadly, that is something neither party seems to do, and both have left their origins. The sad thing is...as they sow, so shall WE reap.
Your history is messed up
Look what I found in a book about the Democratic party:
The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, championed by the party despite opposition at the time from its Southern wing, has continued to inspire the party's liberal principles.
_________
There are also multiple chapters as well as multiple books written about the metamorphosis of BOTH parties since their inception. See, sometimes books really can be a good thing!!! By the way, do you get your historical information from the chronic-liars-library or something? Cuz it surely seems like it.
Obviously you did not read the history...
I did try to get along...and got attacked wholesale for it. Which seems to be the liberal tack...based only on my experience on this board, mind you.
I do not apologize for finding "the wisdom of the Clinton Presidency" amusing. I know that people would like to think that is the way the Clinton Presidency will be remembered...but unfortunately that will be overshadowed and most people remember him as the President who jumped the intern, lied about it, and was almost removed from office for it.
I have a "fairly broad knowledge base" but pretty much founded 100% founded on those utterly awful right wing rags that make much of America cringe." Please to be specific. What have I said or posted from an utterly awful right wing rag? Please show the post and the right wing rag it came from, please and thank you. My SCHIP information came from the Library of Congress web site and the bill itself...unless you call those right wing rags. On that subject, what are you calling utterly awful right wing rags? Frankly, I think that verbiage would make much of America cringe. And come to that...what do you base THAT statement on?
So...first, what are the utterly awful right wing rags? And then suppor that with "most of America would cringe." Lets see some facts, and not from an utterly awful left wing rag, to use your colorful description. Though until you said that, I really had not viewed them that way. Thank you, really, for a new perspective.
So...let's start with your list of utterly awful right wing rags...and support with fact your assertion that said "rags" "make much of America cringe."
You must know the true history.....
Anyone who has studied history in depth knows West Virginia history and the history of its people. They have been for the most part poor people, black and white, and they are proud people. They made do for themselves, didn't take handouts. It's still that way a lot today and they do look at things a lot differently. Goes back to before civil war days. Knowing that helps me to understand their point of view a little better.
Maybe not the worst in US history...
US Grant had lots of problems with the whole Teapot Dome scandal brought on by his best friends - great General, poor President. The list goes on and I'm sure one day Bush will be added to it, but I'm not sure he deserves the title of Worst.
I don't know why I hated history in
school, fascinating now, but I guess it is all the stories; they all their stories. Jamestown on one side here on my mother's maternal side, and the swedish on her father's side. On my paternal side, his mother had the cherokee and some interesting tails from North Carolina to OK to Tx, but her grandfather fought for the union under Grant and went AWOL when they were close to his mother's and he found out neighbors had wiped out all her stores leaving her and the rest of the kids with no food or crops. He killed 2 brothers in the field and could not find the third, married his childhood sweetheart and they hid in the smokies with an old black friend of the family and then drove 2 covered wagons to Ok, she never weighed more than 96 pounds her whole life (did not get those genes). They left Ok for TX when they found out the other brother was looking for them. Looks like we are both old school and alas, there is no room for us anymore. Guess us old dogs have to get out of the way. Being right certainly does not count for anything, does it?! Enjoyed your posts. L
Will history repeat?
If Senator McCain is elected, wonder what excuses will be used to keep him away from the convention in 2012?
You obviously have no clue about his history, a
community organizer in the gettos of Chicago before he even went to Harvard Law School, president of the Harvard review, a very intelligent person, brought up by his single-parent mother and his grandparents to be a compassionate and honorable man, and someone who understands that a president cannot be the end all monarch of American, but knows how to appoint people to his team with expertise. He is a good father, a family man, with a wife that supports him. No one wants to say it, but the biggest reason most white people don't want to vote for him is because he is black and smart.
Boy, did you sleep through U.S. History?
Do you know the foundations this country was built on?
I didn't think so.
You're right on the history and
Papa Kennedy had some pretty shady associations I do believe.
those who do not learn from history....
You should know the rest. and yes, I learned plenty....I learned plenty when my wonderful friend left to go to work on 9/11/2001 just like every other ordinary day, just doing his job, and never came home again. Sorry, but if we don't keep remembering, we are doomed.
History lessons
 Some postings are like getting a history lesson.
I feel like sitting in a classroom agian.
Sometimes it even feels more like brainwashing.
Is this the goal of a forum?
history book??
Revelations?? Give me an enormous break. Even the stuff that is pseudo-historical is more like little kids playing telephone. Revelations works better as a sci-fi novel than as a history book. & anyway, since when are predictions anything like history? What, the "history" of a bunch of people guessing some stuff? Good grief. This is why I really despise Christianity. You have to embrace the concept of satan, evil, the anti-christ, all those hideous concepts, in order to be a true believer. It's fine to believe whatever you like, just make sure your right to believe stops at my right not to be infringed upon by some fairy tale.
tHOSE WHO LEARN FROM HISTORY
I agree with you 200%. I did not vote for Obama. I always vote based on the Bible as does my family and at our Bible Chapel. I always vote against abortion and always towards marriage of one man and one woman, I do believe that Obama is a socialist and he will be introducing social medicine. It makes me think that we're closer to the rapture than we think.
History of bailouts
Instead of trying to blame for the bail outs I want to know how all this came about and I found an interesting site that gives a little history of different government bailouts in the past. Thought it might be interesting for some to read - just a little history (wish I liked reading about history this much when I was in high school).
http://blog.mint.com/blog/finance-core/a-brief-history-of-government-bailouts/
They say history repeats itself and it always does
History is starting to repeat itself already with the beginning of the 3rd term of the Clintons with all the Clintonites that BO is appointing.
Here's a bit of more history...
After WWI Germany sank into a depression.
It found its answer in a man who was an incredible orator. He was a charasmatic speaker who told Germany what it wanted to hear. He promised a rise to glory. He tapped into the dissatisfaction and frustration that the people were feeling and offered relief.
He promised them change. And he delivered. He neglected to mention that "change" meant much more than what people were expecting.
Germany wasn't a dictatorship before he took over. He was elected by a country that thought his promise of change would solve all its problems. He may have not fooled the entire nation but he fooled a majority for a long time.
Who said history is not interesting. We can learn a lot from it, but sometimes unfortunately people do not learn.
And history TRIES to rewrite itself...
Only the dubya blind will never see the truth...........
no history book here
just internet babble. I can copy/paste too!
We ARE repeating history, right now.
Going back to the days of the New Deal - spend, spend, spend. Let's just hope it doesn't take a World War to get us out of this one.
|
