Wooot! George Bush Wins.
- Thread starter airiox
- Start date
airiox said:
If you read these quotes taken from LAND OF PROMISE A HISTORY (it is an American history book)....
" Throughout American history, leaders such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Willian Jennings Bryan, and Robert La Follette had all preached the merits of staying out of Europe's quarrels. Now with war clouds gathering again, this feeling increased."
"Another cause for the growing spirit of isolationism was the disillusionment Americans felt about the First World War."
"American determination to avoid war was reflected in the neutrality lawas passed by Congress in 1935, 1936 and 1937."
"In the United States, President Roosevelt asked Congress to reconsider the Neutrality Acts it had passed earlier. The arms embargo kept needed war materials from Britan and France..."
"Although Americans continued to hope for peace, stories of Nazi brutality turned more and more of them into interventionaitst. In January 1941 a poll showed a massive shift in public opinion: 70% of those polled favored aid to Britain, even if that meant risking war. In March Congress passed the Lend-Lease Act which permitted the President to "sell, transer, exchange, lease, lend or otherwise dispose of," any defense article for "any countrry whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States."
"In September when the American destroyer Greer was attacked by a Nazi Uboat the President authorized American naval forces to attack all German submarines on sight. Then, in November, Congress repealed the portion of 1939 Netrality Act which restricted American ships from sailing into European combat zone. Presient Roosevelt armed the ships and stationed Navy gun crews aborad. The United States was for all pratical purposes at war."
As you can see I think he always wanted to go to war but Congress and the American people were against him so he had to go with the flow until the US was finally attacked. By the way he was elected four times if he was so bad why were people electing him so many times?
airiox said:
They can only hold part of the blame. As I said before people are not proactive in this world they wait until people get hurt/killed to do anything. So yes I am blaming everyone who is involved (leaders, terrorits, et al)
Yea you are right about stopping more attacks. Good for him, my point was being more proactive
Nope, I've never once said on this forum that I hate Bush nor do I watch too much TV. I was just giving you some examples of what they show on TV. You and I can take it for what it is worth. You are right TV focuses too much on the negative and not enough of the positive.
You're right about that but I was giving information about him. For example (since we're discussing wars) they're not going to show people killed or any of the bodies.
Yup you're right about Clinton. Rest assured no president is a saint, they all had flaws, they're human.
Wow this is refreshing I have been posting on another forum full of addicts saying they are conservative.
You sound tame compared to them. All of that is probably true. Such as the Arms embargo was lifted but they still made britain pay cash for anything.
We should have just given it to them. Everyone has their own opinion on history. The facts I am referring to came from a liberal DVD. It was good though. I liked it enough to buy it.
Anyways. Glad to see people like you exist in this world.
You have no idea the disgusting people i have been dealing with.
This may sound strange to you, but Giancarlo is a breath of fresh air. He has nothing on this phyco's I was trying to pursuade.
You sound tame compared to them. All of that is probably true. Such as the Arms embargo was lifted but they still made britain pay cash for anything.
We should have just given it to them. Everyone has their own opinion on history. The facts I am referring to came from a liberal DVD. It was good though. I liked it enough to buy it.
Anyways. Glad to see people like you exist in this world.
You have no idea the disgusting people i have been dealing with.
This may sound strange to you, but Giancarlo is a breath of fresh air. He has nothing on this phyco's I was trying to pursuade.
That if he is a friend with the justice he can influence his decision on the matter of Bush V Gore.Giancarlo said:
the clips were about 2 to 3 minutes long.
I see I did not explain what I thought I did. I meant committees inside the CIA/FBI so that they could have more people working with intelligence officials.
This will be an extremely stupid arguement if you start argueing about how fat micheal moore is.......I mean just stop and think about it. What is the point of this debate, really? We have different opinions on george bush, SO WHAT? Root, I, and collarse might disagree with some of his policies, so what? Giancarlo and airriox might like his policies. So what? It's just a friggin opinion. I've said this before and i'll say it again. We cannot decide the long term concequences of these events. So what's the point of argueing over it? Just get over the fact you differ on opinions.
Hopefully we can either A, close this topic, or B, turn it into a much more peaceful talk...
Hopefully we can either A, close this topic, or B, turn it into a much more peaceful talk...
has anyone read micheal moores newest book (Dude wheres my country?).?
he maes a big deal out of providing and prooving sources, but it's a very thin discuise for a book full of opinion,
He quotes editorials (the editos opinion) as if it were fact because it was printed.
He picks up on sensationalism, one example would be france, he takls of how when the french pople didn't join the coalition of the willing the american society turned very anti french. (renaming french fries to freedom fries. etc...)
then he goes on to insult pretty much all of the coalition countries, saying they are pathetic,
he goes on to say that most of the citizens in the wlling countries don't want war, however he fails to take into account. that in each country there is also a significant proportion in favour of the war, and even in countries NOT in the coalition there aer also pro-war citizens.
On the subject of micheal moore and his book in the chapter called Whoppers, he referres to a whopper as a bun filled with juicy meat salad and secret sauce. -Now you'd have thought a big fat bastard like him would know that there is no secret sauce inside of a whopper -thats a bigmac, and even then it's called big mac sauce, it's KFC that has a secret recipie.
he maes a big deal out of providing and prooving sources, but it's a very thin discuise for a book full of opinion,
He quotes editorials (the editos opinion) as if it were fact because it was printed.
He picks up on sensationalism, one example would be france, he takls of how when the french pople didn't join the coalition of the willing the american society turned very anti french. (renaming french fries to freedom fries. etc...)
then he goes on to insult pretty much all of the coalition countries, saying they are pathetic,
he goes on to say that most of the citizens in the wlling countries don't want war, however he fails to take into account. that in each country there is also a significant proportion in favour of the war, and even in countries NOT in the coalition there aer also pro-war citizens.
On the subject of micheal moore and his book in the chapter called Whoppers, he referres to a whopper as a bun filled with juicy meat salad and secret sauce. -Now you'd have thought a big fat bastard like him would know that there is no secret sauce inside of a whopper -thats a bigmac, and even then it's called big mac sauce, it's KFC that has a secret recipie.
Similar threads
