Liberal Revisionist History In It's Truest Form

[UNT90]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090308/ap_on_...worst_recession

Notiice three things in this article.

1) No mention of Jimmy Carter anywhere in referring to the economy of the LATE 70S and early 80's. I don't have to look it up, I lived it. Double digit unemployment, inflation, and interest rates (what I call the Carter Trifecta) when Reagan was elected.

2) Notice how they chose to blame Reagan, even though he inherited the problem and fixed it before the end of his 1st year term. Wonder if they'll hold Pres. Obama to the same standard? Think not.

3) Notice how the author goes out of his way to attempt to make this a worse situation than the late 70s - early 80s situation. This situation, when Pres Obama took office, was no where near as bad as when Reagan took office, although it has the chance now to get much worse.

[oldguystudent]

If I remember correctly, had we all just simply worn sweaters back in 1979, everything would've been rainbows and puppy dogs.

[UNT90]

If I remember correctly, had we all just simply worn sweaters back in 1979, everything would've been rainbows and puppy dogs.

Steams me everytime Carter opens his mouth to comment on anything. All other former Presidents, recognizing the difficulty of the job, have made it a point not to comment publicly. The one who should keep his mouth shut and go away (based on job performance) is the biggest loudmouth out there (a sad plea to be politically relevant?). Even B. Clinton didn't really start his Bush bashing until he began campaigning for Hillary.

If it were up to Carter's policies, we all would have been speaking Russian by 82 if he were reelected. Pres. Obama has already broke out the Carter economic playbook, lets just hope he doesn't follow suit with foreign policy.

Carter = Most uninspiring Pres. in the history of the U.S.

I used to think he was a good and decent private citizen, until he broke the ex-pres code in an attempt to recreate a different political legacy for himself. Showed an extremely self-centered side of the man.

[UNTflyer]

Pres. Obama has already broke out the Carter economic playbook, lets just hope he doesn't follow suit with foreign policy.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idU...=22&sp=true

[UNT90]

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idU...=22&sp=true

This is what happens when a true believer of the left, combined with absolutely no life experience, becomes President. Truely scarey times. No wonder there has been a huge increase in the purchase of weapons and ammo by American citizens. Look for gun restriction legislation in the near future.

Jimmy Carter thought he could just talk to the USSR, also. Stunning the similarities between the two.

Edited March 9, 2009 by UNT90

[UNTflyer]

Jimmy Carter thought he could just talk to the USSR, also. Stunning the similarities between the two.

Well, here's the thing... Reagan talked to the Soviets as well, but in doing so he made it absolutely clear that the US would not back down from his Star Wars plan. It scared the bejesus out of Gorbachev, he tried to reform politically and economically, but trying to keep up with Reagan's military spending crippled them.

I have no problem talking and reaching out to our enemies, but when doing so you have to make sure they know we mean business and won't back down.

[UNT90]

Well, here's the thing... Reagan talked to the Soviets as well, but in doing so he made it absolutely clear that the US would not back down from his Star Wars plan. It scared the bejesus out of Gorbachev, he tried to reform politically and economically, but trying to keep up with Reagan's military spending crippled them.

I have no problem talking and reaching out to our enemies, but when doing so you have to make sure they know we mean business and won't back down.

There is something wrong with talking with the Taliban. They are not a legimate government. By talking to them, you legitimize them to others, particularly those in Afganistan. Not a good message to send. Same thing for the puppet nut presenting the views of the Islamic Counsel in Iran and the even crazier nut in North Korea.

Nothing wrong with dealing from position of strength with legit countries that are willing to talk in good faith.

[SilverEagle]

Interesting read.

http://www.star-telegram.com/ed_wallace/story/1243720.html

[eulesseagle]

what else is new.....to the winners goes the privilage of rewriting history. goebels once said, "if you tell a lie long enough people will start to believe it." prior to WWII churchill asked one of his financial advisors about how are they going to convince the (english) people about the need for war against germany and to paraphrase, the advisor replied to churchill that we will tell them what to think (through the press) and they will follow.

press manipulation to propagandize the masses. goes on in democracies as well as socialistic governments.

look at all the wars that the americans have fought since the revolution and how the masses were propogandized.

revolution: that was pretty much clear cut...independence.

war of 1812: stop british intervention

civil war: hummmm. how about taxation without representation, again....look at the morell (sp) act.

spanish american war: yellow journalism for territorial expansion. it was not about how cruel the spanish were.

wwI: save industrialist's investments in europe.....hummm.....sounds familiar....no wonder there were peace movements in the usa prior to wwII....people figured out that they were manipulated

wwII: get us out of the depression because economic polices were failing.

korea: save the world from communism. gen. marshall's policies about the commies were pro communist.

viet nam: save the world from communism. prez kennedy was going to pull us out and lbj put us in.

iraq: save the world from terrorism....ok i will stretch it......save the world from communism.....such a great ancronism for war.

(there were other causes but these were prime examples but the berevity of this post will limit any further discussion....there has been an overkill of material on all these subjects and some can be found on al gore's 20th century invention....the internet).

in the final analysis the people are only pawns in a chess match played by those who wish to get rich off our blood.

Edited March 9, 2009 by eulesseagle

[EagleD]

but trying to keep up with Reagan's military spending crippled them.

You mean massive government spending worked?

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

what else is new.....to the winners goes the privilage of rewriting history. goebels once said, "if you tell a lie long enough people will start to believe it." prior to WWII churchill asked one of his financial advisors about how are they going to convince the (english) people about the need for war against germany and to paraphrase, the advisor replied to churchill that we will tell them what to think (through the press) and they will follow.

press manipulation to propagandize the masses. goes on in democracies as well as socialistic governments.

look at all the wars that the americans have fought since the revolution and how the masses were propogandized.

revolution: that was pretty much clear cut...independence.

war of 1812: stop british intervention

civil war: hummmm. how about taxation without representation, again....look at the morell (sp) act.

spanish american war: yellow journalism for territorial expansion. it was not about how cruel the spanish were.

wwI: save industrialist's investments in europe.....hummm.....sounds familiar....no wonder there were peace movements in the usa prior to wwII....people figured out that they were manipulated

wwII: get us out of the depression because economic polices were failing.

korea: save the world from communism. gen. marshall's policies about the commies were pro communist.

viet nam: save the world from communism. prez kennedy was going to pull us out and lbj put us in.

iraq: save the world from terrorism....ok i will stretch it......save the world from communism.....such a great ancronism for war.

(there were other causes but these were prime examples but the berevity of this post will limit any further discussion....there has been an overkill of material on all these subjects and some can be found on al gore's 20th century invention....the internet).

in the final analysis the people are only pawns in a chess match played by those who wish to get rich off our blood.

---Good post... especially first line. The one about the "public believing what they hear if they hear it long enough" What do you think these radio crazies are doing... the same...... and at the same time trashing mainstream media and "liberal college" people who actually research the true facts and most are honest about it (not all of them of course) . The radio crazies have the platform to "brainwash" people hour after hour. When a large group of independent people ie. mainstream media (all four older networks and lots of independent news magazines and papers) are pretty much saying the same thing... .... just maybe they are telling it as it really is and not the one network that is different. Something to think about... Do you really think they get together to cook up these ideas, is that even possible??

--You are repeating a "falsehood" about Gore...He never claimed to invent the internet. The radio crazies regularly say that and apparently you now believe it ... His comment was about sponsoring legislation that put it into the public domain which is absolutely true. [ his comment was about creating the internet with his legislation...he did, just look it up... mainstream media checks facts, so can you ]... Making that false comment discredits your statement although you did make some some good points. This is what bothers me about many people ...they make make comment they know is not true (I hope you know the Gore one isn't) and uninformed people believe it. . As you stated if you say it long enough many people will believe it even if it is false.

--- At least you proved your opening statement about people believing false statements.. (I appreciate you discrediting the extremists radio guys both directions) and their accuracy...Even if you did not intend to do so. If that is wrong, which it is, ... then we can assume that as lot of the rest they say is also false.

WWII-- Come on--- no one ever said at that time thatwar would end the US depression.... It has been said after the fact that it put people to work and may have ended the depression but it was not any factor by the US of entering that war... more non-sense ..that wasn't happening. Once Pearl was bombed we had no choice anyway... they both declared war on us. Unlike some of those wars listed.... it was a war to even survive as a nation. The press had nothing to do with 1812 either... We attacked no one again.. it was an British extension of the Napoleonic Wars... they saw a possibility to retake the US. We fought no-where but our on soil and when attacked at sea. The media or even gov. had no blame at all in this or in WWII which you seem to be implying.. We were forced into both situations. Spanish American... you are absolutely right... we went in based largely on the hawkish effort of one network (actually Hurst newspapers, not Murdock which you may think I was implying) ... sorry for that slip up...hahahaha....

Interesting comment I have heard all my life --- War is usually a rich man's war and a poor man's fight. --one profits and the other dies.. WWII was a big exception..we did not start it, we were forced into it, and we had to win and both groups were in uniform. The Civil War sort of proves the statement... at least 90% of the South did not even own slaves.. but they fought and died so the wealthy could keep theirs.

Edited March 9, 2009 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[SilverEagle]

---Good post... especially first line. The one about the "public believing what they hear if they hear it long enough" What do you think these radio crazies are doing... the same...... and at the same time trashing mainstream media and "liberal college" people who actually research the true facts and most are honest about it (not all of them of course) . The radio crazies have the platform to "brainwash" people hour after hour. When a large group of independent people ie. mainstream media (all four older networks and lots of independent news magazines and papers) are pretty much saying the same thing... .... just maybe they are telling it as it really is and not the one network that is different. Something to think about... Do you really think they get together to cook up these ideas, is that even possible??

--You are repeating a "falsehood" about Gore...He never claimed to invent the internet. The radio crazies regularly say that and apparently you now believe it ... His comment was about sponsoring legislation that put it into the public domain which is absolutely true. [ his comment was about creating the internet with his legislation...he did, just look it up... mainstream media checks facts, so can you ]... Making that false comment discredits your statement although you did make some some good points. This is what bothers me about many people ...they make make comment they know is not true (I hope you know the Gore one isn't) and uninformed people believe it. . As you stated if you say it long enough many people will believe it even if it is false.

--- At least you proved your opening statement about people believing false statements.. (I appreciate you discrediting the extremists radio guys both directions) and their accuracy...Even if you did not intend to do so. If that is wrong, which it is, ... then we can assume that as lot of the rest they say is also false.

WWII-- Come on--- no one ever said at that time thatwar would end the US depression.... It has been said after the fact that it put people to work and may have ended the depression but it was not any factor by the US of entering that war... more non-sense ..that wasn't happening. Once Pearl was bombed we had no choice anyway... they both declared war on us. Unlike some of those wars listed.... it was a war to even survive as a nation. The press had nothing to do with 1812 either... We attacked no one again.. it was an British extension of the Napoleonic Wars... they saw a possibility to retake the US. We fought no-where but our on soil and when attacked at sea. The media or even gov. had no blame at all in this or in WWII which you seem to be implying.. We were forced into both situations. Spanish American... you are absolutely right... we went in based largely on the hawkish effort of one network (actually Hurst newspapers, not Murdock which you may think I was implying) ... sorry for that slip up...hahahaha....

Interesting comment I have heard all my life --- War is usually a rich man's war and a poor man's fight. --one profits and the other dies.. WWII was a big exception..we did not start it, we were forced into it, and we had to win and both groups were in uniform. The Civil War sort of proves the statement... at least 90% of the South did not even own slaves.. but they fought and died so the wealthy could keep theirs.

The historians that I've read said that only about 30% of the south owned slaves. And the poor dirt farmers who did most of the fighting and dying for the south did it because they hated the thought of northerners coming into the south and telling them what to do. The dirt farmers didn't like the southern gentry any more than the northerners, but the poor dirt farmers hated the northerners just a little more. Plus they went to war to defend their individual states....not the right to own slaves.

Both administrations (North and South) stayed away from the slave issue, because they both knew that the average guy, whom they needed to go out and die, wouldn't do it for the black man. But they would do it for love of country/state. It's been pointed out several times, that if the Civil war was really about slavery, then the emancipation proclamation would have been issued shortly after the war started.....not in 1863.

Edited March 9, 2009 by SilverEagle

[KingDL1]

---Good post... especially first line. The one about the "public believing what they hear if they hear it long enough" What do you think these radio crazies are doing... the same...... and at the same time trashing mainstream media and "liberal college" people who actually research the true facts and most are honest about it (not all of them of course) . The radio crazies have the platform to "brainwash" people hour after hour. When a large group of independent people ie. mainstream media (all four older networks and lots of independent news magazines and papers) are pretty much saying the same thing... .... just maybe they are telling it as it really is and not the one network that is different. Something to think about... Do you really think they get together to cook up these ideas, is that even possible??

--You are repeating a "falsehood" about Gore...He never claimed to invent the internet. The radio crazies regularly say that and apparently you now believe it ... His comment was about sponsoring legislation that put it into the public domain which is absolutely true. [ his comment was about creating the internet with his legislation...he did, just look it up... mainstream media checks facts, so can you ]... Making that false comment discredits your statement although you did make some some good points. This is what bothers me about many people ...they make make comment they know is not true (I hope you know it isn't) and uninformed people believe it. . As you stated if you say it long enough many people will believe it even if it is false.

--- At least you proved your opening statement about people believing false statements.. (I appreciate you discrediting the extremists radio guys both directions) and their accuracy...Even if you did not intend to do so. If that is wrong, which it is, ... then we can assume that as lot of the rest they say is also false.

WWII-- Come on--- no one ever said at that time thatwar would end the US depression.... It has been said after the fact that it put people to work and may have ended the depression but it was not any factor by the US of entering that war... more non-sense ..that wasn't happening. Once Pearl was bombed we had no choice anyway... they both declared war on us. Unlike some of those wars listed.... it was a war to even survive as a nation. The press had nothing to do with 1812 either... We attacked no one again.. it was an British extension of the Napoleonic Wars... they saw a possibility to retake the US. We fought no-where but our on soil and when attacked at sea. The media or even gov. has no blame at all in this or in WWII which you seem to be implying.. We were forced into both situations. Spanish American... you are absolutely right... we went in based largely on the hawkish effort of one network (actually Hurst newspapers, not Murdock which you may think I was implying) ... sorry for that slip up...hahahaha....

Interesting comment I have heard all my life --- War is usually a rich man's war and a poor man's fight. --one profits and the other dies.. WWII was a big exception..we did not start it, we were forced into it, and we had to win and both groups were in uniform. The Civil War sort of proves the statement... at least 90% of the South did not even own slaves.. but they fought and died so the wealthy could keep theirs.

Funny how you have no problem spreading the Democratic propaganda that Bush lied to congress, even when the special bipartisan committees voted unanimously for the war and they were not briefed by the White House, but were directly briefed from the sources themselves. And you ignore that the Democrats realized public opinion of the war was changing and they saw that change as an opportunity to drive a political wedge between parties. So all of a sudden they had selective memory and felt they were lied to get off the hook of voting for the war. Now if there had even been a shred of truth to it Bush would have been impeached in a heartbeat. But no there was not any truth to it, of course that did not stop the democrats from dividing the county over the war, instead of standing firm for what they voted for.

There is real proof of what Gore did say, and it truly depends how you read it. Interesting enough as self serving a statement as it is, its not hard to gather he feels he did create the Internet.

But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

Al Gore

[eulesseagle]

screamingeagle-

***the brit mp's tried to discourage churchill in goading germany into war under the pretext of letting the germans and russians fight then declare war on the winner.

***roosevelt did what he could to force japan's hand in attacking the usa by draconian trade policies.

***war of 1812 did had sentiment on the brits stopping our merchant ships and "shanghaing" our seamen. not so much proganda but the press presented a good case. i will agree that it was an extention of the napoleonic wars.

-----i did say there were "other" causes to these conflicts but just stated "one" cause out of many.

***propaganda of the masses occurs on all levels not just republican or democrats.....everyone does it. i was not refering to any one party or ideology. we are all inudated from all directions 24/7 from talk radio, including air america, and on the plethora of cable stations.

[eulessismore]

screamingeagle-

***the brit mp's tried to discourage churchill in goading germany into war under the pretext of letting the germans and russians fight then declare war on the winner.

***roosevelt did what he could to force japan's hand in attacking the usa by draconian trade policies.

***war of 1812 did had sentiment on the brits stopping our merchant ships and "shanghaing" our seamen. not so much proganda but the press presented a good case. i will agree that it was an extention of the napoleonic wars.

-----i did say there were "other" causes to these conflicts but just stated "one" cause out of many.

***propaganda of the masses occurs on all levels not just republican or democrats.....everyone does it. i was not refering to any one party or ideology. we are all inudated from all directions 24/7 from talk radio, including air america, and on the plethora of cable stations.

Eulesseagle, it was Japan who attached us at Pearl Harbor; then a few days later, it was Germany who declared war on us. All this stuff is gone over (and it's always being gone over and over) in a recent book, "Real Enemies". I checked it back in to the Euless Library tonight; you can probably check it out and go over those issues yet again.

[eulesseagle]

eulessismore-

what you are saying is correct. read Churchill's War and Hitler's War by David Irving. Sheds some good info. taken from diaries of the combatants. I have no argument on Japan attacking Pearl Harbor. I am just saying that there were underlying causes that Roosevelt used to provoke Japan.

[FirefightnRick]

Vote Democrat...it's easier than working!

Rick

[oldguystudent]

it's easier than working!

So's going to UNT!

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

screamingeagle-

***the brit mp's tried to discourage churchill in goading germany into war under the pretext of letting the germans and russians fight then declare war on the winner.

***roosevelt did what he could to force japan's hand in attacking the usa by draconian trade policies.

***war of 1812 did had sentiment on the brits stopping our merchant ships and "shanghaing" our seamen. not so much proganda but the press presented a good case. i will agree that it was an extention of the napoleonic wars.

-----i did say there were "other" causes to these conflicts but just stated "one" cause out of many.

***propaganda of the masses occurs on all levels not just republican or democrats.....everyone does it. i was not refering to any one party or ideology. we are all inudated from all directions 24/7 from talk radio, including air america, and on the plethora of cable stations.

Where to start???

---Japan was already at war long before Pearl Harbour. (China) . The day they hit Pearl Harbor they hit Singapore, the Dutch Indies, the Philipines and other places which brought the USA, the British and the Dutch into the war against them... The Roosevelt comment is BS about goading them into war.. --- that is revisionist history that you claims exists..

---We attacked no one in 1812... The British burned Washington, tried to take Baltimore ( Fort McHenry) and attacked New Orleans. True they were after our ships but not us after theirs.

Goading Germany into War (Churchill or the media?) .....get serious... they had already taken Poland and occupied what is now Chech Republic. They were armed to the teeth and wanted war.

The other un-named causes you mentioned were the causes.

____________________

---Someone commented about the 10% I said that owned slaves, a chart I have found shows about 20%.. and most with a small number. the 30% is too many and very few owned 10 or more (1%). Even those that owned slaves usually owned two or less. (domestic and farm help) The States Rights mentioned is rather hokey... without the slavery issue existing... there would not have been a war. The Emancipation Proclamation was held back by Lincoln until they actually started winning some battles (Gettysberg and after) plus they did not want to get the people of Maryland up in arms (Slave state, controled by the North). They held back until they felt that were winning. Almost all early major battles are considered Southern victories.

Edited March 10, 2009 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[eulessismore]

eulessismore-

what you are saying is correct. read Churchill's War and Hitler's War by David Irving. Sheds some good info. taken from diaries of the combatants. I have no argument on Japan attacking Pearl Harbor. I am just saying that there were underlying causes that Roosevelt used to provoke Japan.

Ok, having read "Real Enemies", I'm convinced there was enough truth in the "underlying causes" to keep the controversy alive. I'm just suggesting that book as a good read, in part because it attacks both sides in many of our favorite conspiracy theories, and is probably now available for checkout at our local library. As far as looking at anything from Hitler's viewpoint, for some reason I picked up Mein Kampf at a Barnes and Noble last week, read a page at random, and was more convinced than ever he was determined to conquer, enslave, and racially "purify" it entirely. My relatives who died fighting for the U.S.A. in WWII were fighting for the right side and for our national survival.

[eulesseagle]

SE- i said the mp's were trying to stop churchill from goading germany into war with the brits.....before poland and about around 1937. hitler wanted the commies not the brits.

states rights was an issue prior to the c.w.. i guess that is why virginia and north carolina told the north not to march federal troops, twice, through their states to enforce taxation issues against south carolina prior to the c.w.. read the morell (sp) act and you can determine why the southern states were a bit livid with the policies of the north against the south. if the c.w. was, indeed, fought for slavery why was the u.s. congress, prior to the outbreak of hostilities, were still deciding what states/territiories were to come into the union as free or slave?

as far as the number of southerners who owned slaves there are many figures on that issue. however, northerners owned slaves too but, as you know, were not freed by the emancipation proclamation. heck, gen. grant, finally, released his slaves days before he took the oath of office for presidency. Jeff Davis adoped two slave children as his own either prior to or during the c.w..

in Dinesh D'Souza's book, The End of Racism, he points out that the slaves in the u.s. was the "only" place in our hemisphere where slaves were able to procreate. If I remember correctly by the time that the slave trade was illegal in the us (around the first decade of the 1800s) there was approximately 1/2 million slaves....by the time the c.w. began there was approximately 2.5 to 3.0 million. The positive aspect of any of D'Souza's books are that they are heavily documented.

the emanicpation proclomation was intended for a slave revolt but its purpose never materialized.

nice little read on the taxation issues:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/pearlston1.html

Edited March 10, 2009 by eulesseagle

[CaribbeanGreen]

So's going to UNT!

Amen to that, brother! Do I have to stop after the third degree? I mean, seriously?

[Censored by Laurie]

Vote Democrat...it's easier than working!

Rick

Irresponsible, drive-by posting...

you're gonna kill an innocent child...

why do you hate innocent children?

[KRAM1]

Vote Democrat...it's easier than working!

Rick

Best post YEAR TO DATE.

[Censored by Laurie]

Best post YEAR TO DATE.

Nope...that still goes to this train-wreck:

Remember the Alamo! Too bad the "New Orleans" Alamo flag still sits in a museum in Mexico City. This is not good. Texas must have something that once belonged to Santa Anna that we could trade to get the "New Orleans" flag back on Texas soil where it belongs...yes, I know ...I know..."New Orleans"..."belongs in Texas" sounds a bit odd, but it was the falg of a group of Alamo volunteers from New Orleans.

Can we trade?????

REMEMBER THE ALAMO...

By the way, do you know what the Cherokee nickname for Sam Hoston was? I think it translated into something like "the big drunk"...ha! And, when Houston was in Washington DC he had the habit of walking around his house naked...pretty much ended his marriage to the more proper young lady he married. Great book on Hoston's life..."The Raven"...if you enjoy Texas history I would recommed it.

And, yes, I know Houston was not at the Alamo!