http://clerk.house.gov/histHigh/Congressio...ory/vetoes.html

look how many vetoes LEADERS made and compare it to
GW"I never seen the bill I didn't like"B

Those were UNDISPUTED LEADERS
Franklin D. Roosevelt 635
Harry S. Truman 250
Dwight D. Eisenhower 181
Ronald Reagan 78
and here is your LEADER:
George W. Bush 107th-108th .....

VETO takes balls, leadership and convictions,
as the President ultimatelly becomes responcible for bill not passing and consequnces of it.

Serge - Bush has not had to veto many things because his party controls congress. So no bills come out that he is against.


I disagree with many of the things Bush has done. He has increased gov't spending ( non-military), he shuold have sent US troops into Tora Bora to get Bin Laden, he has mishandled the Iraq situation after the war ( though I think its getting better now).

BUT he is still a leader. He said clearly that he still backs his action in Iraq, and dhe understands that is what people will vote on. He does not flip to the other side minute a posistion becomes unpopular with the population.

Bush is NO Reagan..... or even FDR. But he is a better leade then Clinton & Kerry.

ok,
now when we learned what we have to say,
let;s hear other from Christian Science Monitor to NY Times:
http://s89194761.onlinehome.us/goatquotes.htm

A true leader in the Presidents position can often be spotted by how often he opposes his own party to advance his own agenda. A President who just approves everything his party does is not a leader. He is letting the party lead and is merely their tool, as is this president. (just imho of course)

here is minute by minute the actions of a leader:
http://www.patriotsaints.com/News/911/Cons...cy/Bush/Booker/

My take on it is a bit different:
when Stalin learned that Hitler broke a pact and attacked USSR, he went on the drinking binge for 30 days,
and after he got sober,
he kicked Hitler (another undisputed Leader) in the ass and finished him in Berlin.

...and this is what gives us all hope, right?
;-)))

MikeAI, Regan has MUCH bigger support of the Congress and Sente, which hasn't prevented him from making 78 VETOES,
therefore, your argument doesn't stick.

MikeAI, Regan has MUCH bigger support of the Congress and Sente, which hasn't prevented him from making 78 VETOES,
therefore, your argument doesn't stick. [/b][/quote]
don't forget that he also had an astrologer helping him...maybe she helped him know when to veto and when not to veto?
;-)))

Mike..hasnt Kerry PROVEN he is a leader and has the balls that go with it ?

What has Bush , a consistent business failure prior to his elections, ever done to prove that ?Is it not common knowledge he is LED by Wolfowitz et co ?

Surely merely being consistent is not leadership?

I have a lot of family in Texas. They all love the man, he did a great job as Gov of the state.

His leadership in foreign policy is what a favor, and this is the most imortant subject to vote for. National Security is job #1. Even if ashcroft puts us all out of business.

Your family members who live in Texas liked him as governor. Wow. That fucking changes everything. :blink: :rolleyes:

Bush's policies of unilateral intervention will serve America as well as the isolationist policies of Harding, Coolege, and Hoover (not to mention Taft, et al) did.

I love the way the decisive leader stood behind his conviction that a commission to investigate 9/11 wasn't necessary.

I love the way the focused President stood up to his political oppenents and insisted that the recommendations of the panel (that he didn't want in the first place) would take a considerable amount of time to study before implementation.

I am particularly fond of the way this gutsy, decisive leader opposed the creation of Homeland Security as a cabinet level department.

I have a lot of family in Texas. They all love the man, he did a great job as Gov of the state.

His leadership in foreign policy is what a favor, and this is the most imortant subject to vote for. National Security is job #1. Even if ashcroft puts us all out of business. [/b][/quote]
ahem, social programs?

i doubt bush could spell it.


Face it, a lot of us here will vte with our wallets, we dont want to see a few more % tax points. but there will come a point, when other considerations apply. What good is an america without proper education systems, health care for the elderly (AKA your parents, and you in the next 20-30 years.) Joblessness (bush has disintegrated 2 million jobs) will take its toll on an already struggling economy. You have to fight the war on both fronts.

If we destroy terrorism, thats wonderful. If terrorism destroys what makes this country great, then the only thing we have destroyed is America.

he does not want a cabinet position that does not answer to him and him only. Its a merry go round. so now we have our commander in chief as the "buck stops here guy" when it comes to intelligence? think of the pandora' box that opens. He s an elected official, responsible to the people. He cannot be in the business of keeping secrets to that degree. There is a reason for separate organizations. But they have to operate outside the authority of the president. The way it is to be set up now is ridiculous.


As far as the 9/11 commission. They did a bang up job. to bad Bush adopted 3 resolutions. the only three that would leave him with absolute power.


I like tax cuts as much as the next guy, but the actions or lack thereof of our President, will undoubtedly assure us somebody new. I just wish it wasnt Kerry

Grimm, I think it even more bizarre that the conservative mantra is "less government" yet Bush has significantly increased the size and expense of running the country. They will go on endlessly about the "tax and spend liberals", but they turn around and spend like drunken frat boys in a whore house. Worse, they do it against a major tax cut, which means the deficit is the largest it has even been.

In the end, they will elect a liberal (like Kerry) who will then have to raise taxes to pay for the last four years of run away spending, and they will say "See, tax and spend liberal!".

*sigh*

Alex

the only thing worse than bush being elected would be kerry being elected.

"To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up"

Ecclesiastes 3:1 - 3:3

everything has a time of emergence, a time of growth, a time of decline, then back to nothingness. the USA in currently in the time of decline before the nothingness.

the ideals upon which america was founded were the greatest in history, but a general decline began at the turn of the 20th century and it's pace has only accellerated. no empire in history has reversed it's course once it started down the hill, and the USA will be no exception.

you can see this as calamity or you can see it as opportunity, but rest assured you (or your descendents) will see it.

Could you please enlighten me as to what some of the signs of the so-called decline that began at the turn of the 20th century were?

Bush sucks :rokk:

I have a lot of family in Texas. They all love the man, he did a great job as Gov of the state.

His leadership in foreign policy is what a favor, and this is the most imortant subject to vote for. National Security is job #1. Even if ashcroft puts us all out of business. [/b][/quote]
LOL Bullshit. Ever look at the quality of life statistics when Bush was Governor?

I am from Texas, born and raised and the mindset of these people *TEXANS* is that they are voting as if they are in High School...."because he's from Texas."

My father asked my great aunt who for the last 40 years has lived in Alaska who she was voting for and why...even she said Bush..."Because he's a Texan."

Anyway here's some info for you:
Texas Rankings Under Bush: Good Enough for You?

AUSTIN, TEXAS -- A quick look at Texas under Bush:

National Ranking
Among 50 States
(the number in parens is the Source of the ranking)

The Education Governor

Teacher salaries at beginning of 1st term 36 (1)
Teacher salaries at beginning of 2nd term 38 (1)
% Change in Average Salaries 1987-97 constant $ -5.4%
Teacher salaries plus benefits 50 (1)
High school completion rate 46 (2)

Bush Family Values

Highest number of children living in poverty 2 (3)
Highest number of children without health insurance 2 (3)
Highest % of children without health insurance 1 (3)
Highest % of poor working parents without insurance 1 (3)
Highest % of population without health insurance 2 (3)
Highest Teen Birth Rate 5 (4)
Per capita funding for public health 48 (4)
Delivery of social services 47 (4)
Mothers receiving prenatal care 45 (9)
Teen smoking - down nationally, flat in Texas (5)
Teen drug use - down nationally, up in Texas (5)

Pollution

Pollution released by manufactuting plants 1 (6)
Pollution by industrial plants in violation of Clean Air Act 1 (6)
Greenhouse gas emissions 1 (6)

Quality of Life

Spending for parks and recreation 48 (7)
Spending for the arts 48 (7)
Public libraries and branches 46 (8)
Spending for the environment 49 (7)
Best place to raise children 48 (9)

Sources: (1) National Education Association, (2) U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Development (3) U.S. Bureau of Census, Current Populations Trends (4) U.S. Dept Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics (5)1998 Texas School Survey of Substance Use Among Students: Grades 7-12, Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse (6) U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution and Prevention (7) Texas Observer (8) Statistical Rankings by State (9) Children's Rights Council

This is one of my major problems with Bush, his "compaisonate conservativism" means the Federal Gov't paying for more projects. He is breaking a major rule of true Conservatives.

If there had been no 9-11, if we were not in a very important time in our Nations history that needs someone who sees the mission clearly, then I would be happy to toss Bush out the door.

Hell I would happily smile and pay more taxs....

But 9-11 did happen, while Bush has made mistakes, he has been strong. Kerry is wishywashy and weak - he is "french like" and thus I do not want this guy in power.

It is not that Bush is so great, its that Kerry sucks more then Bush.

Mike is right, Bush saw the mission clear from the get go:
http://www.patriotsaints.com/News/911/Cons...cy/Bush/Booker/ and
knew that Iraq is where it all will end, with Saddam going down.


and

Mike is right, Bush saw the mission clear from the get go:
http://www.patriotsaints.com/News/911/Cons...cy/Bush/Booker/ and
knew that Iraq is where it all will end, with Saddam going down.


and
[/b][/quote]


Serge you enjoy propaganda still?

You saw the images live that day. I remember the thread on Oprano on 9-11.

Bush is far from perfect, but he is better then Kerry. Even if a professor from the liberal ivory towers of BU says otherwise.

yes, I've seen the image that day, LIVE, but what I didn't know was that Bush spent another 7 mins afterwards reading book to kids.
I lost $5000 bet to my wife on that and that was very embarassing,
especially after losing her $10,000 bet the day before in front of KK!

I don't know about you, Mike, but I can't afford to lose money to my wife at this rate, 1/3 of it due to Bush!

So Sue cashed that check on Friday then I take it? ;-}}}}

So how many vetoes has Bush used? Chart doesn't say. 107/108 just means the 107th and 108th congress.

Mike, your "decisive leader" is in all likelyhood the major cause of many of the perils the US faces today. His unbending attatchment to his beliefs, even in the face of proof to the contrary, frustrates and alienates many in the world. He can cover up his cowboy mentality on world politics by using such wonderful cover phrases as "coalition of the willing" and "nations from all over the world", but realistically his actions in Iraq have been those of a lonely, stand alone bully. Only his closest "friends" stand with him, and they don't even like it (see Tony Blair's political life slowly slipping away because he got too far under the covers with Bush).

Bush and his crew have spent the last 2 years trying to convince the world that their actions in Iraq are "all about 9/11". There are enough people out there dumb enough to think that Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11 - and nobody in the republican party is going to correct them. They want people to see Saddam, BinLadin, and the 9/11 hijackers as the same enemy, so they can freely go out and avenge the 2600 or so people who died horribly in New York (down from the original 5000... how the heck can they be off by 50%?).

Have you heard bush as WMD lately?

have you seen Colin Powell at all lately?

Nope.

While that is all going on, on the home front the President lowers taxes for the rich, and spends like there is no tomorrow. All sorts of new agencies, groups, departments, and organizations have sprung up, yet the old ones are all still there. The size of government has swelled... and so has the deficit.

You don't know what Kerry would do. Considering how many deals are made in the Senate to get this or that done, a voting record is rarely a clear indication of the man. Everyone likes to talk about the "Kerry voted NOT to give money to the troops" - what they don't point out was that is was a Whitehouse blank check request that the Senate should have said no to. Taken out of context, it looks like he hates the military. In reality, he was standing up against a bigger abuse, and that is never spoken about.

Unless you can see the future, you don't know what Kerry would do. I know what Bush has done for your country, and I am pretty sure you guys can't handle another four years of this stuff.

Alex

So how many vetoes has Bush used? Chart doesn't say. 107/108 just means the 107th and 108th congress. [/b][/quote]
Colin,
stop pulling my leg,
I can't beleive they don't teach in Yale how to read elementary chart....

NONE, check the link I posted...

Blanks aren't 0's. Google "bush vetoes".

Blanks aren't 0's. Google "bush vetoes". [/b][/quote]
oh, that's how they do it at Yale?

Colin,
do you know that Bush is the third one in recent politics with VETO powers?
His father, George Bush did veto a few bills, and so did his brother Jeb in Florida.
Florida is one of the 50 states in the Union,
south east of the country,
it looks like a hernia on the map.
LMK if you need exact coordinates involving paralles and meridians.

Leadership eh ?? I will not attack Bush's leadership because that would be counter productive. So, instead I will highlight some stuff about Kerry, some of which you may be aware of, some of it probably not.

1. When Kerry came back from Nam he joined the Viet Nam Vets againast the war (notice the plural there, in other words, he was far from the only Vet to come home realizing that we were in the war for the wrong reasons) He also testified before Congress and spoke about atrocities and so forth. Fact is that there were attrocities being committed in Vietnam. They were right there on the front page of Life magazine. They were being reported by the press. For anyone to claim that there were no atrocities going on is to ignore the historical record completely. The US was fighting a dirty war, for the wrong reasons (reference the Pentagon Papers, remember those) and killing many innocent people. Did Kerry see or participate in the "atrocities" ? I have no idea because that kind of stuff does not end up in any official records if it can be helped. Was the statement that the US was committing atrocities true ? Absolutely.

2. By 1971, when Kerry returned, the majorty of Americans were against the war and wanted the US troops out. In the Nixon/McGovern race of 1972, the War was one of the main isssues early on. Nixon stole most of McGovern's steam from him when he stole the war issue from the democrats. http://www.NixonEra.com/media/video/vietnam.ram Nixon ran for reelection stating that he was getting us out and would get us out of Vietnam. So Kerry's viewpoint of the war was far from a minority position.

3. In 1986, it was a Kerry Staff report that help bring to light the entire Iran-Contra scandal. He continues his inquiry which also led to a 1989 Kerry report attacking the Reagan administration for their dealings in Central America and Latin America. In particular, the dealings with Noriega in Panama. Later in 1989, the Bush (the 1st) administration took out Noriega. Now, at the time, his reports were dismissed as "crackpot" and "conspiracy theory" but were 10 years later confirmed by CIA reports.

4. During the Nicaragua/Latin America investigation, Kerry exposed the now infamous BCCI. He and republican Hank Brown released the report "The BCCI Affair" that exposed the bank and their ties to known terrorist and blasted whole sections of the government for their tacit approval of BCCI'a actions On this he received criticism from members of his own party for going after not only republicans but also democrats that were involved.


So, I don't know about other folks, but I look at stuff like this and see someone who is not afrad to buck his own party, not afraid to buck the other party and not afraid to stand up for what he believes is right even when it is unpopular. Add to that his (undisputed by any of the ads or anything else) willingness to turn his boat INTO enemy fire when it was necessary and I see a leader.

anyone want references to this stuff, start from wikopedia and go from there.

What I find interesting about this thread (and others like them on other boards, adult and non-adult) is that there seems to be a very strong shift away from Bush. A year ago, it was "Bush rules... kick some muslim butt" - and anyone who said anything different got beaten like a red headed step child. Now I see more and more people "defending" the Kerry side. Heck, even Drudge has been pretty good about putting up the truth about those sneaky ass swift boat liars.

People just seem to be connecting the dots on Bush at the last minute, and are starting to realize they have been "bushed".

Alex

oh, that's how they do it at Yale?

Colin,
do you know that Bush is the third one in recent politics with VETO powers?
His father, George Bush did veto a few bills, and so did his brother Jeb in Florida.
Florida is one of the 50 states in the Union,
south east of the country,
it looks like a hernia on the map.
LMK if you need exact coordinates involving paralles and meridians. [/b][/quote]
Yeah, you got me there ;-)

It just depends on your starting point and the story you want to tell. While it's true that Bush approval is down from 55% to 46% over the past year his approval is up from 41% to 46% since May. Despite the summer release of "Fahrenheit 911" and the Democratic Convention Bush's popularity has risen throughout the campaign season.

An anti-Bushite looks and says "Bush's approval is dropping". A Bushite looks and says "Bush's approval is rising". Both are right.

as i product of the american public school system i can sympathise with those who have not a clue about american history. public schools are great for indoctrination and teaching kids to do what they're told for 8 hours a day, but piss-poor for education.

so for those of you who don't know about the development of the US empire in the early 20th century, i'd say the start was in the phillipines:

"The basic causes of the Philippine-American War can be found in the U.S. government's quest for an overseas empire and the desire of the Filipino people for freedom. In other words, this war was a clash between the forces of imperialism and nationalism."

http://www.historyguy.com/PhilipineAmericanwar.html

(wow, that sounds just like the current situation in iraq)

then we have WWI, when the US went out of it's way to involve itself in a war it had no interest in.

Like Roosevelt before him, Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924) regarded himself as the personal representative of the people. "No one but the President," he said, "seems to be expected... to look out for the general interests of the country."

He developed a program of progressive reform and asserted international leadership in building a new world order. In 1917 he proclaimed American entrance into World War I a crusade to make the world "safe for democracy."

http://www.firstworldwar.com/

(wow, that sounds just like the current situation in iraq)

and as for "so-called decline", bill bonner http://www.dailyreckoning.com/ summed it up nicely this week in a note how americans are so full of themselves:

"Precambrian, Cambrian, Paleozoic, Mesozoic, Cenozoic...

Tribe...monarchy...empire...democracy...

Americans seem to think that history has come to a dead stop - with them on top of the world."

as i product of the american public school system i can sympathise with those who have not a clue about american history. public schools are great for indoctrination and teaching kids to do what they're told for 8 hours a day, but piss-poor for education.

so for those of you who don't know about the development of the US empire in the early 20th century, i'd say the start was in the phillipines:

"The basic causes of the Philippine-American War can be found in the U.S. government's quest for an overseas empire and the desire of the Filipino people for freedom. In other words, this war was a clash between the forces of imperialism and nationalism."

http://www.historyguy.com/PhilipineAmericanwar.html

(wow, that sounds just like the current situation in iraq)

then we have WWI, when the US went out of it's way to involve itself in a war it had no interest in.

Like Roosevelt before him, Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924) regarded himself as the personal representative of the people. "No one but the President," he said, "seems to be expected... to look out for the general interests of the country."

He developed a program of progressive reform and asserted international leadership in building a new world order. In 1917 he proclaimed American entrance into World War I a crusade to make the world "safe for democracy."

http://www.firstworldwar.com/

(wow, that sounds just like the current situation in iraq)

and as for "so-called decline", bill bonner http://www.dailyreckoning.com/ summed it up nicely this week in a note how americans are so full of themselves:

"Precambrian, Cambrian, Paleozoic, Mesozoic, Cenozoic...

Tribe...monarchy...empire...democracy...

Americans seem to think that history has come to a dead stop - with them on top of the world." [/b][/quote]
How is that any different than the westward expansion that preceded the 20th century? The Mexican-American War was fought in the mid 19th century. The peak of the Indian Wars also occured during the 19th century. "Little Big Horn", "The Red River War" and so on. Oh, and the US started the War of 1812 too. So if anything, American has been imperial in that regard since the get-go. I don't see any dividing line between the 20th and 19th centuries. I don't see how you throw the US participation in World War I as a sign of empire in there. What did the Americans ask for while the European powers were carving up Africa and the Middle East in the Treaty of Versailles?

And what was the rest of the world doing during this period of "US Empire" as you refer to it? Starting two world wars and gobbling up and enslaving the world in a rush to see which nation could be the greatest colonial power. All of Africa, India, the Caribbean, large parts of the Middle East, the Far East.

You speak of the decline of America but in actuality it is the opposite. The US didn't emerge as a true world power until the 1880s when its economy became the largest in the world. By your reckoning, the US began to decline precisely when it had just begun to get going. The US became one of two world "superpowers" following World War II as the traditional powers were weakened and the US and USSR secured nuclear weapons. It is easy to forget but the US only emerged as the "world's only superpower" just 13 years ago with the fall of the USSR.

I'd say the US was in a better position in 1900 than it was in 1880. It was clearly in a far better position at the end of War World II than it had been prior. It seems quite obvious that the US is in a much better position in 2004 than it was in 1984 during the Cold War. That's an incline. Not a decline.

First of all, your assertion that public school graduates have no clue about American history is rather lame. I am a graduate of the public school system, and also have me a library card. As such, your "history-lite" lesson about the early-20th-century was hardly necessary (although as enlightening as the hyperbole about the public schools).

I will give you this much ... both Wilson and Roosevelt had a certain messianic regard for themselves. However, each reprented polar opposites - to imply any sort of continuity between the two schools of thought they represented indicates a profound lack of understanding of their world views.

As much as I dislike Bush and everything he stands for, I am not prepared to take the leap off into comparing our actions in Iraq to our actions in the Phillipines (even if there are certain TACTICAL comparisons that can be made).

The schizophrenia of the neocons is that they are employing the realpolitik methods of Roosevelt to achieve a Wilsonian objective (establish a thriving democracy to act as a "light on the hill" for all of the Middle East to follow).

Your description of World War I as a war in which we had no interest is (to be polite) questionable as well. Those were, after all, American ships the Germans were sinking with unrestricted submarine warfare. While it is true that the impending conflict between the U.S. and the Central Powers was not nearly as apparent as the subsequent conflict with the Axis, it was there ... and had we waited too much longer to get involved in the conflict we would have entered it under worse conditions than we did 25 years later.

Suffice it to say that I think the claim that America has been in decline since the turn of the 20th century is bullshit.

that's what i like about oprano, higher average iq per poster than any other webmaster board.

ok, colin first:

"How is that any different than the westward expansion that preceded the 20th century?"

it's not necessarily different, but at best the argument could be made that the contiguous land-mass and lack of recognized "sovereign nations" was different than going a third of the way around the world to overtake countries to set up military bases for forward deployment.

"What did the Americans ask for while the European powers were carving up Africa and the Middle East in the Treaty of Versailles?"

my knowledge is still incomplete on this topic, so rather than try to bs it i'll take a pass for now. if i have time i'll respond.

"And what was the rest of the world doing during this period of "US Empire" as you refer to it? Starting two world wars and gobbling up and enslaving the world in a rush to see which nation could be the greatest colonial power."

yes, and how did that turn out for those countries? file that under "precedent for failure of imperial ambitions".

"The US didn't emerge as a true world power until the 1880s when its economy became the largest in the world. By your reckoning, the US began to decline precisely when it had just begun to get going."

rome was rocking in 137 BC or so when the decline began. it took over 400 years to fall. i didn't say it was going to happen next wednesday, i just said it was going to happen.

"It seems quite obvious that the US is in a much better position in 2004 than it was in 1984 during the Cold War."

hardly. in 1984 the US was much more powerful than today.

"We have allowed ourselves to go from an international creditor to a debtor nation in a matter of a few years. We are now the world's largest debtor nation by a factor of five or six times." Jim Rogers

so what does that mean? that means that america relies on foreign investment to meet its obligations, and that without them forking over incredible amounts of cash the US government is bankrupt and will have no power.

instead of spending all this money to build the infrastructure of a modern manufacturing country the US is spending $500+ billion a year for it's military to go around starting wars that piss off the rest of the world. how long do you think china and japan will be interested in investing in a country that is throwing away it's investment like that?

you have an much different idea of "power" than me i guess.

Mike i agree with parts of this, i know you are a Bush supporter, but the republicans really have nothing but ad hominem argments to stand on when it comes to the "war on terror". I would even go as far as to say that the aily reports of casualties are helping his campaign, as it tugs the heatstrings of Americans far and wide, and keeps what Bush has pushed to the forefront, the war on terror, in the actual center ring of the media circus. Thats how out of control this has become.

ok, now pornodoggy:

first of all, i wasn't being condescending but if you took it that way then fuck you anyway :nyanya:

and really, would you say that the average american public school graduate is equally as well-educated as you? i've read your posts; i'd say not. what would you say?

"your "history-lite" lesson about the early-20th-century was hardly necessary"

then why did you ask? when someone says "Could you please enlighten me as to what some of the signs of the so-called decline that began at the turn of the 20th century were?" i get the impression they don't already know the answer. if you do then why waste my time?

"I am not prepared to take the leap off into comparing our actions in Iraq to our actions in the Phillipines (even if there are certain TACTICAL comparisons that can be made)."

ok, so they are doing the exact same thing, but they're not? i'm sure you're familiar with PNAC and it's plan for using iraq as the forward deployment bases for further military adventures in the middle east. more similarities than differences i'd say.

"Your description of World War I as a war in which we had no interest is (to be polite) questionable as well. Those were, after all, American ships the Germans were sinking with unrestricted submarine warfare."

yes, and those ships being sunk were passenger ocean liners filled with military supplies headed to england. if you aren't aware of this i'm thinking your public education failed you here.


i keep making the mistake of posting here and giving people the impression that i give a fuck. i used to care, but then i found out that most of what i'd been taught was a scam. once i began to educate myself and saw that there was nothing new under the sun i lost my anger and became a dispassionate observer of the human folly.

the only reason i bother to say anything at all is the offhand chance someone reads one of my posts and concludes the perpetual american "patting themselves on the back" and starts to learn and prepare for a future drastically different than the one they're selling on tv.

"In the middle of every difficulty lies opportunity." albert einstein

If that's the "at best" argument it's not a very good one. Mexico was certainly a sovereign nation when the US invaded them and took California, Arizona and New Mexico in 1848.

History, particularly the history of the two World Wars and the Cold War, has been an interest of mine since I was ten or so. Overall, I would say that the average public school graduate fairs no worse or no better than the average private school graduate when it comes to understanding history. Moreover, I would say that the average college graduate (well trained in the skills of regurgitation and purging of data to absorb some more for repeating the process) generally carries the same prejudices he/she acquired in high school, which reduces "understaning" of history to an ability to throw a few more "factoids" into play in a discussion.

It should have been obvious from the question that I don't believe such signs exist. After reading what you replied, I fail to see any evidence of it. You tied together two diametrically opposed positions (that of Roosevelt and that of Wilson), and trotted out what appearts to me to be some basic Isolationist 101 theories, with some Nye Commission disinformation thrown in for good measure.

Not hardly. Do you think that passenger liners were the only ships sunk? Are you aware of the so-called Zimmermann Letter, a secret telegram promising Mexico that if she would join Germany and encourage Japan to join the Central Powers, Germany would assist Mexico to regain her lost territories in Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico by conquest? The purpose of this was to prevent potential assistance to the allies.

By tactical situation I was referring to the situation our troops were encountering, not the policies driving their presence in the first place. I do realize there are some who advocate "further military adventures in the middle east"; there is no shortage of stupid people anywhere. The FACTS of the situation are such that this would be VERY difficult to pull off. What the Bushites have done with this fradulent war and poorly-planned occupation will probably make it difficult to respond to any GENUINE threat that really does arise in the Middle East, or anywhere else, for that matter.

that's why i prefaced it with "at best" :P

If that's the "at best" argument it's not a very good one. Mexico was certainly a sovereign nation when the US invaded them and took California, Arizona and New Mexico in 1848. [/b][/quote]
Not only that ... the United States had stipulated the legitimate soverignty of the various and sundry Native American nations time and again in formal treaties.

right on, pd. i'll have to make the same statement i made to colin when he brought up wwI specifics:

"my knowledge is still incomplete on this topic, so rather than try to bs it i'll take a pass for now."

i forgot how much effort debating on messageboards requires. i think i'm going to take Mark Twain's advice: "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

take it easy,
eatapeach

Really? For example, how about campaign finance reform which he promised his supporters he would not sign during the campaign in 2000?