well for one i always knew people outside this country had an interest in america. i didn't know that they were THIS interested in america. they seem to know more stuff about this country than people who live here.
Well some people at least. Aside from Astronomy, History is by far my favorite topic. It's what I read, it's what I watch, and it is what I listen to.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
are you into law?
No, but I'll show you my audible history, my goodreads page, and my netflix queue. I guess I am just different. Popular entertainment just doesn't do it for me. Real History is the greatest story ever told.13/f/taiwan wrote:
are you into law?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
law is history.
Well then, I am in how it relates to major historical events. The Oriental Exclusion Law and what it did to cities like Sacramento.. for example.13/f/taiwan wrote:
law is history.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Not all that differentKmar wrote:
No, but I'll show you my audible history, my goodreads page, and my netflix queue. I guess I am just different. Popular entertainment just doesn't do it for me. Real History is the greatest story ever told.13/f/taiwan wrote:
are you into law?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I meant favourite in terms of 'least poor'.Kmar wrote:
Yea.. I especially liked the part where he bombed Iraq, he asked the CIA to look into ways to destabilize the Serbian government, and left us in a recession.Dilbert_X wrote:
Clinton was the most effective IMO.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENAV_UoIfgc
Kennedy gets my vote.
Fuck Israel
establishment history, code and orthodoxy, perhaps... human history? cultural history? full history? not even close.13/f/taiwan wrote:
law is history.
calm down with your high-school course
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Uzique wrote:
establishment history, code and orthodoxy, perhaps... human history? cultural history? full history? not even close.13/f/taiwan wrote:
law is history.
calm down with your high-school course
Reagan, then Clinton, then Kennedy.
Too bad Ike missed the cutoff, or he would've topped the list.
Too bad Ike missed the cutoff, or he would've topped the list.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Kennedy stands out for me because he actually stood up to the CIA. Through the FIA we now know that there were some real ambitous crazies in the CIA during his administration. Those men that believed that we should preemptively strike the Soviets. He had a lot of poise in one of this countries most tense moments of history, the Cuban Missile Crisis. His response was balanced and with stern purpose. Had there been a weaker man in office this world could be drastically different today.
.. although in the end. Bucking heads with the CIA might not have been a good idea .. for his own personal health.
.. although in the end. Bucking heads with the CIA might not have been a good idea .. for his own personal health.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
if nixon got a bad deal by history... it seems kennedy got a surprisingly good one.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
What Kmar said.
noice 
+1Uzique wrote:
if nixon got a bad deal by history... it seems kennedy got a surprisingly good one.
Reagan
What is the point of saying who if you don't say why?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
How was Clinton's administration the cause of the recession? And what was so bad about how he handled Iraq?Kmar wrote:
Yea.. I especially liked the part where he bombed Iraq, he asked the CIA to look into ways to destabilize the Serbian government, and left us in a recession.Dilbert_X wrote:
Clinton was the most effective IMO.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENAV_UoIfgc
Kennedy gets my vote.
inane little opines
It wasn't. Presidents always get the blame for recessions because they are omnipotent. They also get deified if they preside over an economic boom. Funny the way it is...dayarath wrote:
How was Clinton's administration the cause of the recession? And what was so bad about how he handled Iraq?Kmar wrote:
Yea.. I especially liked the part where he bombed Iraq, he asked the CIA to look into ways to destabilize the Serbian government, and left us in a recession.Dilbert_X wrote:
Clinton was the most effective IMO.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENAV_UoIfgc
Kennedy gets my vote.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Embarrassed Republicans Admit They've Been Thinking Of Eisenhower Whole Time They've Been Praising Reagan
WASHINGTON—At a press conference Monday, visibly embarrassed leaders of the Republican National Committee acknowledged that their nonstop, effusive praise of Ronald Reagan has been wholly unintentional, admitting they somehow managed to confuse him with Dwight D. Eisenhower for years.
The GOP's humiliating blunder was discovered last weekend by RNC chairman Reince Priebus, who realized his party had been extolling "completely the wrong guy" after he watched the History Channel special Eisenhower: An American Portrait.
"When I heard about Eisenhower's presidential accomplishments—holding down the national debt, keeping inflation in check, and fighting for balanced budgets—it hit me that we'd clearly gotten their names mixed up at some point," Priebus told reporters. "I couldn't believe we'd been associating terms like 'visionary,' 'principled,' and 'bold' with President Reagan. That wasn't him at all—that was Ike."
"We deeply regret misattributing such a distinguished and patriotic legacy to Mr. Reagan," Priebus added. "We really screwed up."
Following his discovery, Priebus directed RNC staffers to inform top Republicans of the error and explain that it was Eisenhower, not Reagan, who carefully managed the nation's prosperity, warned citizens of the military-industrial complex's growing influence, and led the country with a mix of firm resolve and humble compassion.
"Wait, you're telling me Reagan advocated that trickle-down nonsense that was debunked years ago? That was Reagan?" Sen. John Thune (R-SD) said upon hearing of the mistake. "I can't believe I've been calling for a return to Reagan's America. I feel like an asshole."
According to sources, millions of younger Republicans have spent most of their lives viewing Reagan a stalwart of conservative principles, and many were "horrified" to learn that the former president illegally sold weapons to Iran, declared amnesty for 2.9 million illegal immigrants, costarred in a movie with a chimpanzee, funneled aid to Islamic militants in Afghanistan, and suffered from severe mental problems.
In the wake of the GOP's revelation, Congress has passed bills to rename Reagan National Airport and the USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier in honor of Eisenhower. A number of potential 2012 Republican presidential contenders have also rushed to reframe their agendas in terms of "Eisenhower ideals" while distancing themselves from Reagan.
"It's absolutely mortifying to suddenly realize that the man you had long credited as a champion of fiscal conservatism actually tripled the national debt and signed the largest peacetime tax hike in U.S. history," said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, adding that he was ashamed to learn that the man he once called his hero stood by silently while the AIDS epidemic exploded. "Frankly, I can't even believe that fucker had the balls to call himself a conservative."
"But we must move beyond this mess and look ahead toward our country's future, a future much like the one envisioned by the great Ronald Reagan," Gingrich added. "Oh, sorry—force of habit."
The misplaced adulation of Reagan has reportedly affected more than just Republican rhetoric, and seems to have had an impact on policy. Former president George W. Bush told reporters he "honestly thought" everyone wanted him to follow in Reagan's footsteps, which led him to emulate the 40th president's out-of-control deficit spending, fealty to the super-rich, and illegal wars.
While the GOP's error has gone largely unnoticed by the American public, a number of citizens admitted to having been puzzled by Republicans' slavish celebration of Reagan during recent years.
"I never understood why everyone elevated him to the level of a party icon," said 89-year-old Nancy Reagan. "Ronnie was certainly sweet and I loved him very much, but let's face it, he was a terrible president."
The onion is great.
inane little opines
I feel the same. I'm stuck in the year 2000, and yet I was only 7 thenMekstizzle wrote:
That's how I think too. When I think 1970 I think 30 years ago. It'll always be like that. But shit, it's fucking 40 years, dude.ghettoperson wrote:
TBH, when I made this thread I was thinking of 50 years ago being 1950. I'm not sure why my brain is still stuck around it being 2000.
That's all I have to contribute in this thread cos I don't care about the rest
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
I was operating on dils logic. What is wrong with bombing iraq with the justification of wmds? You've got to be kidding. .. and I was ofc talking about the recession we entered when he left office. It sounds like dayarath is unaware of it.JohnG@lt wrote:
It wasn't. Presidents always get the blame for recessions because they are omnipotent. They also get deified if they preside over an economic boom. Funny the way it is...dayarath wrote:
How was Clinton's administration the cause of the recession? And what was so bad about how he handled Iraq?Kmar wrote:
Yea.. I especially liked the part where he bombed Iraq, he asked the CIA to look into ways to destabilize the Serbian government, and left us in a recession.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENAV_UoIfgc
Kennedy gets my vote.
I've spoke at length on the importance of looking at who was in congress at the time.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Right but even Congress' glory/blame is vastly overstated. They really have minimal impact outside of the tax rate. I guess opening new markets via legislation falls under their purview but they're more the Wizard of Oz, all bells and whistles and no substance, rather than some omnipotent set of beings that make the economy hum or crash based on their directives. They want you to think that they do have that power of course, it feeds their ego and helps win them votes come election time when they have idiots in midwestern towns begging them for jobs. But even that power is limited.Kmar wrote:
I was operating on dils logic. What is wrong with bombing iraq with the justification of wmds? You've got to be kidding. .. and I was ofc talking about the recession we entered when he left office. It sounds like dayarath is unaware of it.JohnG@lt wrote:
It wasn't. Presidents always get the blame for recessions because they are omnipotent. They also get deified if they preside over an economic boom. Funny the way it is...dayarath wrote:
How was Clinton's administration the cause of the recession? And what was so bad about how he handled Iraq?
I've spoke at length on the importance of looking at who was in congress at the time.
I'm aware that you know this already, just kind of thinking out loud here.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Yeah, the operation was quite clearly meant to destabilize Iraq if anything. I wonder however why you consider this a low point of Clinton, the mission was very short lived and didn't have much of an impact. I considered it more of a continuation of the earlier 1996 bombings.Kmar wrote:
I was operating on dils logic. What is wrong with bombing iraq with the justification of wmds? You've got to be kidding. ..
inane little opines