Revisions in history

[loosenoose24]

If it's one thing that irks me, it's when conservatives seem to suffer from amnesia when it comes to their stances in history. Here are some examples.

1. If you're conservative, don't bother to ever wear a "never again" button or involve your self in any sort of protest for remembering the holocaust. It's your conservative grandparents who were against letting the jews immigrate here during the war. Hell, you can't really even be against camps because it was also your grandparents who supported japanese internment camp that kept about 120,000 innocent japanese people under lock and key surrounded by barbwire fences from 1944 to 1948 without any compensation until 1990 for when the ordeal was over and done with. No wonder the japanese are xenophobic, huh?

2. Don't say Lincoln freed the slaves, because he didn't.

3. Ronald Reagan's war on drugs was ostensibly the last vestige of institutionalized racism in the U.S. But that's what you expect when you have a president whose background was Hollywood, not Peoria. Let's also not forget that Reganomics nearly phased out the middle class all together and gave us the biggest deficit since the depression by giving the rich tax breaks they used to invest rather than revitalize the economy. Something Bush is implementing even today. Warren Buffet has even spoken out against it when he realized one blue collar worker in Berkshire Hathaway pays more taxes than he does.

4. The electoral college that conservatives cling to was implemented originally because most americans were illiterate and the government didn't want to grant the public too much power. Now that the majority of americans are well read we still have this barely functioning dinosaur. If we have to keep it we should at least make it so the popular vote overrides it. Let's remember the popular vote was in favor for Gore in 2001. More americans voted for him than Bush, but we still some how ended up with him.

5. We were not attacked by Iraq. We were attacked by a rogue group of Saudi arabians without governmental ties. But somehow this administration duped the public into thinking that Iraq attacked us. Our congressmen don't even know whether Al-Qaeda is made up of sunni islamics or shiites (it's sunnis for the record). But we sure had no qualms about bombing civilian territory and immolating innocent bystanders in shock and awe. We went there to liberate them you say? We sure liberated the hell out of them by cutting off their food and water supply and fueling tensions that WILL lead to civil war. Let's face it, this administration doesn't know anything about the middle east and it doesn't really care either, as long as the can keep us distracted and Cheney's oil company Haliburton is there to make a buck, just like it did off of hurricane Katrina.Speaking of Cheney, talk about being like being a prodigy of Machiavelli, or at least Darth Vader. He is the only politician I know of in history who has ever claimed to be in two government branches at once. In order to keep information he wants classified to stay classified he claims that instead of being in the executive branch he is in fact part of the legislative branch because the vice president has a small amount of legislative duties. Didn't he take freshman civics?

[q1a2z3]

If it's one thing that irks me, it's when conservatives seem to suffer from amnesia when it comes to their stances in history. Here are some examples.

Hey loosenoose24, you need a history lesson not to mention a lesson in economics. FDR didn't let the Jews into America during WWII. FDR was a communist sympathizer. Commies don't like people of faith. QED, they didn't get in. I would wager that real conservatives, not deamoncrats or republicans, would have allowed them in when the ship arrived in New York.

The japs butchered 300,000 children, woman and men in Na King China, back when it wasn't under commie rule, and FDR decided after Pearl Harbor to intern japs, germans and italians. This had to be done because the pussies running our great country had not funded our military so we had a deterrent to Japan. The best estimates we had were that if Japan invaded we might have stopped them in Missouri. Of course when one is a whinny liberal with no real-world experience and thinks the American constitution applies to everyone in the world and our government is the real enemy one hears lots of crap like you wrote in item 1. The japs are not xenophobic. They just got the hell stomped out them in August of 1945. They learned a great lesson from Americans who were not a bunch of pussies like they are today - with a 55 gallon drum of Vasoline as their idea of an alternative to a War Department. The really funny thing about japs is they are more racist than your average American. They even have a cast system with untouchables just like India had. They force all foreigners to carry an ID card. When you first meet and Asian you never want to ask them if they are Japanese. If you are wrong they might punch your lights out.

1. If you're conservative, don't bother to ever wear a "never again" button or involve your self in any sort of protest for remembering the holocaust. It's your conservative grandparents who were against letting the jews immigrate here during the war. Hell, you can't really even be against camps because it was also your grandparents who supported japanese internment camp that kept about 120,000 innocent japanese people under lock and key surrounded by barbwire fences from 1944 to 1948 without any compensation until 1990 for when the ordeal was over and done with. No wonder the japanese are xenophobic, huh?

Ha! For the average American Lincoln "freed" the slaves. The amendments
to the constitution actually freed them. In the final analysis Lincoln was being a republican - he simply wanted to piss off the south and if it wasn't for him wanting to piss them off slavery may have continued. The Civil War was never about slavery anyway. Of course what really pisses off liberals is that America had free black people living in both the north and south before "slavery" ended.

2. Don't say Lincoln freed the slaves, because he didn't.

Reagan lowered tax rates, which helped everyone. Reagan didn't stand up to the liberals in Congress on social spending and allowed them to add to the national debt. We need a 600 ship Navy now to deal with communist china and other threats in the world. Lowering tax rates allowed many new jobs to be created and fueled economic growth at a fast rate. I know math is a tough subject in this forum, but social security, Medicare, medicade and other government give away programs are pyramid schemes and must come to and end before the country dies from them. Unfortunately, Reagan, being a republican, didn't not work to protect manufacturing jobs from going overseas. He needed to understand that unions are necessary to the existence ofa middle class. Warren Buffet's personal opinion is that his investment income which is taxed at 15% should be taxed at a higher rate just like regular income. This would not provide incentives to businesses or individuals to use their profits to create more jobs. It's amazing how inept this community is when it comes to simple math. Buffet pays more taxes than anyone in Berkshire Hathaway but his tax rate on investment income is lower. Of course this tax rate applies to all Americans if they want to invest money in stocks.

3. Ronald Reagan's war on drugs was ostensibly the last vestige of institutionalized racism in the U.S. But that's what you expect when you have a president whose background was Hollywood, not Peoria. Let's also not forget that Reganomics nearly phased out the middle class all together and gave us the biggest deficit since the depression by giving the rich tax breaks they used to invest rather than revitalize the economy. Something Bush is implementing even today. Warren Buffet has even spoken out against it when he realized one blue collar worker in Berkshire Hathaway pays more taxes than he does.

Again, study history. The electoral college exists to allow all states, great and small to have a level playing field in electing a President. Why do we have state governments? If you want a straight popular vote then the President would be elected by the most populous states. The remaining states would not have a say in the selection. I don't want New York and California voters deciding who will be the President.

Our Constitution was severely wounded in 1913 when the 17th amendment was passed. The state governments abdicated any involvement in the Federal Government by allowing Federal state senators to be elected by the people instead of being appointed by the state government. State governments have many "unfunded mandates" from the Federal Government every year because we have created the imperial Senate. Idiots like the gang of 14 thought they could control the government. McCain is a good example. He votes time and again to let illegal aliens stay here over the will of real Americans.
When you are a senator and are being voted for by a large group of people you are essentially unaccountable. State governments should never have allowed the passing of the 17th amendment.

It's amazing that Forest Gore getting more votes is held up like its a good thing. It's a shame that a real John Wayne kinda guy who could launch on mecca didn't get elected.

4. The electoral college that conservatives cling to was implemented originally because most americans were illiterate and the government didn't want to grant the public too much power. Now that the majority of americans are well read we still have this barely functioning dinosaur. If we have to keep it we should at least make it so the popular vote overrides it. Let's remember the popular vote was in favor for Gore in 2001. More americans voted for him than Bush, but we still some how ended up with him.

Forest Bush attacked the wrong group at the wrong time. By the way, WAR= dead civilian camel jockeys. Are they innocent? Are they guilty? Who knows, who cares. There are too many of them in America and too many in the world. The 5 or 6 muslems who are not trouble makers left the middle east a long time ago.

12th of September 2001 was the time to nuke riyadh, mecca and torra borra. This simple exercise would have stopped all future muslem problems. Why? Because the ones left alive would have gone to kill the terrorists so they don't get nuked again. We did this with the japs in WWII and with the exception of an invasion of high quality products, we have not had trouble with them since.

We are liberating Iraqis on a daily basis while the idiots are blowing up our progress over there. Of course Forest Bush is caving into the left on the rules of engagement over there. Iraqis are suffering because of bags of shit like John Murtha and the liberal press (re: Tim McGurk of Time Magazine) are getting in the way of dealing efficiently with the enemy.

Gee, Darth Cheney is in both branches at once! I bet a liberal judge in San Fransicko would agree to that if a liberal were in the VP seat.

Haliburton gets $18.00/meal x (100,000 guys + 100,000 blackwater guys)
x ( 1.5 meals/day average ) x 365 day/year x 10 years

Wow! I'm glad I bought Haliburton back in the early 1990s just after the first gulf war.

5. We were not attacked by Iraq. We were attacked by a rogue group of Saudi arabians without governmental ties. But somehow this administration duped the public into thinking that Iraq attacked us. Our congressmen don't even know whether Al-Qaeda is made up of sunni islamics or shiites (it's sunnis for the record). But we sure had no qualms about bombing civilian territory and immolating innocent bystanders in shock and awe. We went there to liberate them you say? We sure liberated the hell out of them by cutting off their food and water supply and fueling tensions that WILL lead to civil war. Let's face it, this administration doesn't know anything about the middle east and it doesn't really care either, as long as the can keep us distracted and Cheney's oil company Haliburton is there to make a buck, just like it did off of hurricane Katrina.Speaking of Cheney, talk about being like being a prodigy of Machiavelli, or at least Darth Vader. He is the only politician I know of in history who has ever claimed to be in two government branches at once. In order to keep information he wants classified to stay classified he claims that instead of being in the executive branch he is in fact part of the legislative branch because the vice president has a small amount of legislative duties. Didn't he take freshman civics?

[trish]

WAR= dead civilian camel jockeys. Are they innocent? Are they guilty? Who knows, who cares.

if this is a random sample of your thinking q#$*%6, why should anyone give a flying fuck what you think? are you an idiot? are you warped? who knows? who cares?

[vegasboy]

yeah qseriesofirrelevantnumbersandletters,

I don't know what makes you think people on this board would be receptive to the arguments of anyone calling Arabs "camel jockeys". Are you sure you didn't misjudge your audience? This is a politics section, not a section for race-baiting.

You might make some decent points, but then again you might not, but I won't be reading any of your posts.

[vegasboy]

wrong thread.

[thx1138]

1984: He who controls the past controls the present. He who controls the present controls the future. Historical revisionism is all about find a pretext(s) for future warfare whose goal is global domination and population reduction. (not necessarily in that order)