Well, folks, we have done it. We have gone out in force, and elected a man who is from a repressed minority to the office of President. Gone will be the days of abuse of power, warmongering, torture, spying on innocent Americans, useless accusations, and favoring only the top money earners of society. Even Florida has proven that it can get its collective head out of its rear and vote together for the right men. When I think about what could have happened if it went the other way, I can only say "Whew, thank God And Goddess". Now, we can all work together, Trans and non Trans people, to rebuild our beloved America into what it was meant to be, instead of the laughingstock that we had become. The joke is no longer on us, folks.
Unfortunately, even though Florida has shown it is basically non-racist, it has shown this election something ugly. Floridians have voted almost overwhelmingly to change its state Constitution to ban gay marriage. Many of our gay and Lesbian friends are very disappointed. I have no idea what other outcomes will result from this hideous show of hate and intolerance. One group of people surely have forced their lifestyle on another, this time. I am ashamed of us, in this respect.
I'm actually still in awe over just how much the LGBT community was taken back. At this point it looks like every single initiative having to do with limiting gay rights passed...and this on the same night that the nation elects a black president. I would never have thought it would be such a landslide victory for hate and intolerance.
Quote from: SarahR on November 05, 2008, 08:57:18 AM
At this point it looks like every single initiative having to do with limiting gay rights passed...and this on the same night that the nation elects a black president. I would never have thought it would be such a landslide victory for hate and intolerance.
Hey Sarah :)
I just wanted to point out to people that the initiatives on ballots in several states concerning gay marriage/lgbt issues were requiring a YES vote to pass and that that is what set us back. That was a little confusing about Prop 8, a YES vote meant you were not approving of a same-sex couple getting married.
I agree a double message. I have never planned on the marriage ever passing in my lifetime, so I guess its less of a dissapointment more of a ohh of course. I guess we are ready for a African American President but not LBGT rights. All I can hope is everyones time will come. At some point maybe we will run out of groups to oppress?
Myles
Quote from: MeghanAndrews on November 05, 2008, 12:36:22 PM
Quote from: SarahR on November 05, 2008, 08:57:18 AM
At this point it looks like every single initiative having to do with limiting gay rights passed...and this on the same night that the nation elects a black president. I would never have thought it would be such a landslide victory for hate and intolerance.
Hey Sarah :)
I just wanted to point out to people that the initiatives on ballots in several states concerning gay marriage/lgbt issues were requiring a YES vote to pass and that that is what set us back. That was a little confusing about Prop 8, a YES vote meant you were not approving of a same-sex couple getting married.
Good point. That could very well have been something that may have affected the outcome, at least in California, where it was closer numbers than in other states. I guess we'll just have to keep fighting and wait until people come around, as they always do eventually.
QuoteI guess we'll just have to keep fighting and wait until people come around, as they always do eventually
Or they die out and become too old to fight.
My reasons for not wanting Obama:
1. McCain has more well defined stronger policies for the US/Mexico border
2. I don't like the idea of universal health insurance.
3. As much as I want the US out of Iraq I'm afraid Obama may try and do it prematurely.
4. McCain has a more well defined strategy for protecting the environment, plus I believe that the Republicans in general have a better history of enacting policies for protecting the environment.
5. McCain wants America to make big advances in space technology, something I would like to see done
QuoteMcCain has a more well defined strategy for protecting the environment
"Drill Drill Drill"
Quote from: nickie on November 05, 2008, 08:35:42 AM
Well, folks, we have done it. We have gone out in force, and elected a man who is from a repressed minority to the office of President. Gone will be the days of abuse of power, warmongering, torture, spying on innocent Americans, useless accusations, and favoring only the top money earners of society. Even Florida has proven that it can get its collective head out of its rear and vote together for the right men. When I think about what could have happened if it went the other way, I can only say "Whew, thank God And Goddess". Now, we can all work together, Trans and non Trans people, to rebuild our beloved America into what it was meant to be, instead of the laughingstock that we had become. The joke is no longer on us, folks.
Unfortunately, even though Florida has shown it is basically non-racist, it has shown this election something ugly. Floridians have voted almost overwhelmingly to change its state Constitution to ban gay marriage. Many of our gay and Lesbian friends are very disappointed. I have no idea what other outcomes will result from this hideous show of hate and intolerance. One group of people surely have forced their lifestyle on another, this time. I am ashamed of us, in this respect.
I have tried to stay quiet.....
But no more.
I live in Texas. We had no choice in the Republican race during the primaries.
We the people who chose to be non-sexist and vote for Hillary were squashed. Note Hillary won the Popular vote ( see http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html ) in the primaries and still lost the nomination to the now President Elect. Obama with 88,345,458 and :icon_geekdance: :icon_drunk: :icon_geekdance: :icon_dance: :icon_dance:
Hillary with 88,901,831:icon_geekdance: :icon_drunk: :icon_geekdance: :icon_dance: :icon_dance:
Even though I have conservative roots, Hillary could have swung me out into new waters. Let's face it, she and McCain are pretty much moderate, McCain perhaps standing a little more to the right. When you speak of "abuse of power, warmongering, torture, spying on innocent Americans, useless accusations, and favoring only the top money earners of society", and lay that upon John McCain, you do him a great disservice.
This is a man who was captured during wartime and brutal beaten to the point of broken bones. And he was offered multiple ways to get out of the beatings like turn over information, sign a confession of his warcrimes. Instead he found HONOR by not selling out his military nor the country he loves. If you could spend a day of what he had to go through, my hats off to you.
You may not like Bush, but do not equate McCain with him. And if you think the now President Elect will be perfect ... please review the success of the last two democrat Presidents.
Clinton had the Waco incident, Whitewater, and the disgrace of his cohorting brought to the Oval Office, AND the Fannie and Freddie loan issues were put into place under his administration.
Carter while truly a great man, showed how weak we were to the rest of the world via his foreign policy with the Iran hostages.
I stand behind my new President Elect and respect the man holding the office. Note I respect that he got this far, but any further he has to earn my respect. In order to do that I need to understand his relationship to Rev Wright, Bill Ayers, Acorn, and his true citizenship as determined in the Berg case.
Be forewarned, I believe the Clinton Presidency will be mild compared to what will come to light in the coming days.
Daisy
McCain supported that President, and those policies. And I don't think Obama is going to make those kind of mistakes. He is going to go in more highly organized and more motivated then anyone we've seen since Reagan.
QuoteNote Hillary won the Popular vote
That is counting states Obama was not on the ticket. That is not a fair or accurate statement. It lends a tone to the rest of your statement.
1. McCain has more well defined stronger policies for the US/Mexico border
You mean, supporting immigrant rights. Yeah, that's one thing I liked about him... till he flip-flopped. Don't like Mexicans? Don't like migrants? Go somewhere that doesn't have them (like, I don't know, the moon) -- and the you can be one yourself!
2. I don't like the idea of universal health insurance.
I assume you mean "single payer," not "universal." Or are some people just not good enough for insurance? Anyway, tell it to GM and other major American employers who are getting hit almost as hard by the current health care mess as their employees are.
3. As much as I want the US out of Iraq I'm afraid Obama may try and do it prematurely.
Doubtful. Highly. Obama's not a hothead. And "premature" exactly defines how we got in in the first place.
4. McCain has a more well defined strategy for protecting the environment, plus I believe that the Republicans in general have a better history of enacting policies for protecting the environment.
Jesus, what to they put in the drinking water in Texas? Yeah, that was true -- when Teddy Roosavelt was president!
5. McCain wants America to make big advances in space technology, something I would like to see done
Um... wtf? Maybe he'd have be as helpful as Bush was to NASA -- cutting off funding for hundreds of important science missions for the Moon/Mars boondoggle.
...
But who cares. YOU LOSE!!! WE WIN!!!! U-S-A!!!! WOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: lisagurl on November 06, 2008, 04:48:57 PM
QuoteNote Hillary won the Popular vote
That is counting states Obama was not on the ticket. That is not a fair or accurate statement. It lends a tone to the rest of your statement.
That speaks more to the staff of people he counted on.... If I was running for office your can be sure I would have my staff make sure my name was on every ballot. And who is to say she would not have held her lead --- And those two states did not have their primary voices heard. And the people could always write in his name too.
Daisy
Posted on: November 06, 2008, 08:37:54 pm
Quote from: Alyssa M. on November 06, 2008, 05:40:15 PM
4. McCain has a more well defined strategy for protecting the environment, plus I believe that the Republicans in general have a better history of enacting policies for protecting the environment.
Jesus, what to they put in the drinking water in Texas? Yeah, that was true -- when Teddy Roosavelt was president!
Annwyn -- you from Texas? If not, Alyssa if you can not keep your facts straight on a forum.... I am from Texas.
Quote from: Alyssa M. on November 06, 2008, 05:40:15 PM
But who cares. YOU LOSE!!! WE WIN!!!! U-S-A!!!! WOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!
That is really the spirit of unity....
Quote from: daisybelle on November 06, 2008, 02:49:04 PM
I stand behind my new President Elect and respect the man holding the office. Note I respect that he got this far, but any further he has to earn my respect. In order to do that I need to understand his relationship to Rev Wright, Bill Ayers, Acorn, and his true citizenship as determined in the Berg case.
Note I stated to stand by behind our president elect and respect him.... you want to rub it in...
not nice.....
I hope and pray that his relationship to the above does not disgrace the office he is holding, like the former democrat did.
Daisy
Those two states were voting early, in direct violation of the rules the Democratic Party had laid out. Note, there was no legal or electoral rules to follow. O was going to run in Mich and Florida (god, what is it with Florida?) if, and when, they held a primary that conformed with party rules.
And I ain't going to cry for Hillary. She is the de facto power forward in the Senate now. Her close friendship with the Frisco Ladies that Lunch (Boxer, DiFi, and Miss Nancy) and some Chicago props with the Obama people, and is going to be about the biggest money raiser on the hustings, so she's going to have people still to come who are loyal to her - she's a player in her own right now. And that's not a little something. In some ways I'd much rather be a very powerful member of the US Senate representing a key player (in this case, New York) than president I think.
The last thing I'd fault is Obama's staff. They won against all odds I think, and did it in part by running one of the best national campaign I've ever seen, and I've been paying attention since the late sixties. He won the primary, then the election. Hard to diss the staff on that one.
Ya know, Daisy, I started a reply to your first post that pointed out some few meager facts to distort your opinions: facts about when American citizens give birth in either this country or another their children are American citizens. In fact, when two illegal immigrants' children are born in this country they (the children) are American citizens. Period.
And the fact that Whitewater was investigated for about 8 years from Ken Starr to Matt Drudge and what was discovered?
And that Rev Wright may have views about whites and our power-structure, but heck, could you blame him? He's not yet been able to fathom the "love" that people who drag men behind their cars around Paris, Texas, obviously have in their hearts for black folk.
And that when Bill Ayers was setting bombs Barack Obama was 4. And that possibly you should query the Annenberg Foundation about the people they appoint to their local boards if you're truly concerned about what a college professor and the President-elect have in common.
But, that just all seemed pointless. You're going to believe what you're gonna believe, maybe even that Hillary could have convinced you to vote for her. Hmmm. I reckon it don't much matter. I doubt your vote would have made Texas blue; and realistically-speaking, which Democrat do you really think could have?
I'm just happy you're not "giving" me your respect for where I've been and where I've come. I think I could do better without it.
Why not just say you may have Obama as a President, but you have no intention of supporting him in any way for five minutes?
Wouldn't that have saved a lot of space? Just askin,' ya know?
Nichole
That stuff didn't stick because no matter how much Rev. Wright was that 'big angry black guy' who white folk love to find so scary, O was none of that. Likewise a bomb throwing radical? In that suit? Hardly.
I do know, that if you keep appointing people to government who don't think government works, don't think it should work, then sooner or later, it ain't going to work. O has his job cut out for him, but I think he's up to it.
Moreover, there seems to be a spirit of 'give him a chance' - if even only for self preservation. We have some big problems, problems that we need a functional government to be part of the solution for, and that can't be ignored anymore.
His first choice is beyond brill as the Brits might say. Chief of Staff is huge, and I think he got a good guy to do it. He's picking people who are good, not just people he likes. Its a good sign.
He may have actually studied FDR and his ways, ya think?
N~
Well FDR is a Harvard guy, and so is Obama, and I thought that's what people at Harvard studied, other people who had gone to Harvard.
They definitely seems to study those who attend with them! *laugh* That was evident in Cambridge last I was there. :)
Nikki
I know about Harvard from one person I know who went there, and my other friend who went to MIT. So, its either the best place on earth with the smartest people ever, so some hell hole crawling with preppie yuppie scum. Not much of an inbetween.
Excuse me, Bush had his issues too before coming to office. And I knew Clinton was not telling the truth when Barbara Walters interviewed him when he initially started campaigning concerning his possible infidelities....
But the American people voted and put these men into office.
All I am saying that to blindly accept what has been put forth and not seek the truth, make a lemming( Yes I know the lemming thing is a myth but it fits).
When asked McCain provided all necessary documentation to ascertain his citizenship. Obama sought dismissal of the the case --- why? The case in question was not filed by a republican but a Pennsylvania Democrat Lawyer Phillip Berg...
See Link --- http://noiri.blogspot.com/2008/10/born-in-coast-provincial-general.html (http://noiri.blogspot.com/2008/10/born-in-coast-provincial-general.html)
This is not over see http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/ (http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/)
A normal person would provide what is asked for.... why should he be so different?
I hope for the sake of this nation he did not defraud us. The implications are mind-boggling.
Daisy
Posted on: November 07, 2008, 01:45:51 am
Quote from: Nichole on November 06, 2008, 08:00:59 PM
Ya know, Daisy, I started a reply to your first post that pointed out some few meager facts to distort your opinions: facts about when American citizens give birth in either this country or another their children are American citizens. In fact, when two illegal immigrants' children are born in this country they (the children) are American citizens. Period.
In order to be president you must :
Only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both citizens of the U.S.) may be president of the United States, though from time to time that requirement is called into question, most recently after Arnold Schwarzenegger, born in Austria, was elected governor of California, in 2003. The Constitution originally provided a small loophole to this provision: One needn't have been born in the United States but had to be a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted. But, since that occurred in 1789, that ship has sailed.
Also note his father was not a US Citizen. Sure he can be a citizen -- But is he Native born... there may be evidence to prove otherwise. If true where do you stand?
==============================================================================================
So Congratualtions. I hope we can work to together to see this country through a better place for all. Your opinion may never match mine... so what?
Maybe if I start drinking enough the next four years will go by fast.... or at least be blurry.
Please expect that I do want this country to be successful. I do expect you to hold the new President and the Congress to the same standards you scrutinized the current administration.....
Daisy
You should click on the links more often from the places you cite as evidence. Looks to me that both suits were dimissed for exactly the same grounds and the BCs would not have required the parties to submit them themselves. The courts could have ordered the BCs for both Obama and McCain.
QuoteSunday, October 26, 2008
Federal judge dismisses Obama citizenship lawsuit
Devin Montgomery at 2:55 PM ET
[JURIST] Judge R. Barclay Surrick of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania [official website] on Friday dismissed [case materials] a lawsuit challenging the citizenship status and eligibility of Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) to become US president. The lawsuit [complaint, PDF], filed by Pennsylvania attorney Philip Berg, had alleged that Obama did not meet the constitutional requirement [liI backgrounder] of being a "natural born" US citizen, arguing that Obama had lost his citizenship as a child when his mother married an Indonesian man, and had failed to reclaim it upon becoming an adult. Berg also alleged that there was insufficient evidence that Obama had been born in the US, and challenged the veracity of his Hawaiian birth certificate [certificate image]. Surrick dismissed the case, finding that Berg lacked standing to bring the suit because he did not face direct harm even if the allegations were true. Berg has said that he plans to appeal [press release] the suit's dismissal. AP has more.
A similar court challenge was previously made to the citizenship of Obama's presidential rival, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), arguing [NYT report] that McCain did not qualify as a "natural born" US citizen because he was born at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone, a military installation outside of US territory. US District Judge William Alsup dismissed that lawsuit [order, PDF] in September for lack of standing.
© JURIST
Next, point?
Nichole
Where do I stand? He was elected President and the garbage you're citing is simply that. I believe I'll just stand about right there, thanks. The fluff from the
Conspiracy-Theory Gazette notwithstanding.
Nichole
btw, go read the Constitution, it requires a "natural-born Citizen of the United States." That my dear would mean anyone born to an American citizen, not particularly two American citizens since the law says one suffices.
Quote from: Nichole on November 07, 2008, 12:53:03 AM
You should click on the links more often from the places you cite as evidence. Looks to me that both suits were dimissed for exactly the same grounds and the BCs would not have required the parties to submit them themselves. The courts could have ordered the BCs for both Obama and McCain.
Next, point?
Nichole
Where do I stand? He was elected President and the garbage you're citing is simply that. I believe I'll just stand about right there, thanks. The fluff from the Conspiracy-Theory Gazette notwithstanding.
Nichole
btw, go read the Constitution, it requires a "natural-born Citizen of the United States." That my dear would mean anyone born to an American citizen, not particularly two American citizens since the law says one suffices.
QuoteThe terms of citizenship are interpreted very strictly. A President must be a natural born citizen, meaning that immigrants are not eligible to run for President, no matter how long they have lived in the United States. If a child of American citizens is born abroad, he or she is technically considered a natural born citizen, and can therefore hold Presidential office. In addition, a Presidential candidate must have actually lived in the United States for at least 14 years, presumably so that he or she is aware of general issues which impact the American populace. Cited from http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the-requirements-to-run-for-president-in-the-united-states.htm (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the-requirements-to-run-for-president-in-the-united-states.htm)
No you are wrong yet again. I do not deny his mother was a US citizen, but if he was born in Kenya as alleged then he is not Natural born. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
As to the garbage --- if this is found to be false then I bow to you. But I did not ask you where you stood now, but where would you stand having found out if true he was born in Kenya? Lastly I did check the link and I said this is not over because of just that Berg has filed an appeal.
Daisy,
Please read the quote you made yourself from wisegeek. It doesn't matter if he was born in Kenya, Timbuktu, the former USSR or The Panama Canal Zone. If Mom was an American citizen, "technically" so is he. Berg can appeal to the judgement of Heaven and that won't change a single fact.
So, like I said, that's where I stand right now and where I'll stand if it's determined he was born anywhere, including Hawaii. The implication of what you are saying is that our President is going to be an "illegal" alien we have raised to the Presidency, and that is just so much garbage, even by your own quoted citation.
So, shall we stop wasting Susan's bandwidth? You know and I know we are not going to agree on this. And that's the last word I have. You're allowed to believe what you believe or wish to believe. O, no need to bow, I find it uncomfortable when folks do that! :)
Thanks,
Nichole
Still we are waiting unpatiently that the new president changes quickly immigration politics! I wait nothing less than unconditional amnesty for all illegal immigrants.
QuoteNot much of an inbetween.
They have some very good book stores. ;)
Yeah, and all the girls have their own cars too.
But the Sec of State for Hawaii has said the cert is legal, valid and the rest. I have no way to challenge a Sec of State.
Quote from: Nichole on November 07, 2008, 08:00:13 AM
Daisy,
Please read the quote you made yourself from wisegeek. It doesn't matter if he was born in Kenya, Timbuktu, the former USSR or The Panama Canal Zone. If Mom was an American citizen, "technically" so is he. Berg can appeal to the judgement of Heaven and that won't change a single fact.
So, like I said, that's where I stand right now and where I'll stand if it's determined he was born anywhere, including Hawaii. The implication of what you are saying is that our President is going to be an "illegal" alien we have raised to the Presidency, and that is just so much garbage, even by your own quoted citation.
So, shall we stop wasting Susan's bandwidth? You know and I know we are not going to agree on this. And that's the last word I have. You're allowed to believe what you believe or wish to believe. O, no need to bow, I find it uncomfortable when folks do that! :)
Thanks,
Nichole
Quotea child of American citizens
LAST POINT --- I promise. If you are going to try to use my sitings against me please read it completely. The quote from wisegeeks states it has to be both parents be US citizens to be naturalized if born abroad. I am not calling him an illegal alien, just potentially an non-naturalized American Citizen.
I hope this does not come to pass for the sake of our country. Should if come though well I will support Biden then.
Daisy
Even in the highly unlikely event that Obama is not "natural born" who cares? You want to restrict the right of voters to elect whom they wish to be president?
Arnold Schwarzenegger, God bless him, when asked whether he'd support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage replied by asking whether it might be a better idea to have an amendment to allow any U.S. Citizen (over the minimum age) to be President.
I support Arnold fully on that matter. The natural-born requirement is an out-dated restriction on my rights to elect whomever I (and some large number of my fellow citizens) choose to elect. It made sense in 1789. It makes no sense today. Why on earth should Arnie not be allowed to run?
Like I said -- get over it. We win, you lose. That's called democracy. I got over it in 2000, and wished Bush a successful administration. I got over it again in 2004. Both elections were marred by illegal restrictionsion voting that might have tipped the outcome. But I got over it when the losing candidates accepted the outcome. You can get over it today.
Quote from: Alyssa M. on November 07, 2008, 01:24:34 PM
Even in the highly unlikely event that Obama is not "natural born" who cares? You want to restrict the right of voters to elect whom they wish to be president?
The law is not about what it could be --- it is about what it is. This is the Constitution we are talking about. If you want to change it, do the ground work to get an amendment to change it.... but to say and allow it to be broken makes the paper it was written on worth about as much as the TP used by millions. I wholy support Mr. Arnold having his chance, but only if it is a legal election.
As far as restricting the right of the voters to elect whom they wish to be president.... That was what the founding fathers had in mind. From your point of view anyone worldwide should have that chance.... or would you limit this?
Quite worse than texas actually. Try the only state in the union that didn't officially resign from the confederacy and the region of said state that still throws possys. Gotta love us South Carolinians... the true southerners of America.
My hopes and best wishes are for Obama. ALl this BS about his promises of change are just that, BS. But he might be one of the first to bring America back to her older glory. Although looking historically, glory was always returned to nations that conquested... Egypt's greatest age was in her conquest, some with Greece, same with Rome, same with Syria, same with China, same with the UK... so, why not the US? I can't completely agree that the war in Iraq is being fought for oil. The soldiers aren't fighting for oil, maybe the people sending them are, but the marines and sailors over there are fighting for justice and freedom for those people, not for oil. Even if it is for oil though, I don't ->-bleeped-<-ing get what the problem is. We've got bigger guns, better trained military, and better standards of living. The Iraqi people have everything to gain from being conquered and absorbed into America.
If Obama can make federal health care work, then hell yeah. No other nation has been able to, but perhaps we're something special. After all, the government owes the people right? It's not like those of us who work every day and do our best to be our best and eat healthy and live an active lifestyle should get treated any better than unemployed slobs who load up on fried chicken every day and expect the government to pay for their $2000 of medication a MONTH for their Humira and their Lipitor and their Nexium and Crestor... all those other medicines that they wouldn't have to take if they'd ->-bleeped-<-in stop being SLOBS. Not to mention that the average generic percocet script runs over $100 and oxycontin will shoot up to over $800, and it's common for those to get run through medicaid just so some unemployed filth of society can sell it on the street. And yeah, I work in a pharmacy and know all about this.
If Obama can work with Arny and get this nation to quit being oil-dependent then the economy would DEFINATELY go up. Everyone would need engine adjustments, hydrogen stations would have to be set up, etc. But, funding to terrorist organizations in the middle east would stop. Pollution would drastically decrease. Dependency on foreign nations for energy would drop significantly. Technology would improve to the betterment of our daily lives.
Maybe Obama could even standardize immigration issues in such a way that Mexico could bond with the US(as it's basically doing on its own anyways) and can use the high about of laborers readily available to increase her own industry.
There's always the possibility that Obama could find a way to deter heavy murder rates without use of the death penalty. I think it's pretty much impossible, but perhaps it could happen.
Obama might do this and he might do that. The fact is, he's got a ton of crap to go through to get ANYTHING done. So unless he changes the balance of powers in this country, ->-bleeped-<- aint gonna happen.
Annwyn --- stand tall and proud for voicing your opinion ( might want to don your flak jacket ).
I am right here beside you.
Daisy
Quote from: Annwyn on November 08, 2008, 12:10:27 AMAlthough looking historically, glory was always returned to nations that conquested... Egypt's greatest age was in her conquest, some with Greece, same with Rome, same with Syria, same with China, same with the UK... so, why not the US?
That's an interesting thought, but is it borne-out by fact? Not necessarily. One might note the six following examples I can think of off the spur to say instead: perhaps such a pov becomes an investment of the way history is written and by whom.
Political historians until Braudel, tended to focus on wars and politico-economic hegemony. They looked/look at imperial governments and decided that a certain period was a particular place's "golden age" or "greatest age." Often enough that has to do with an empire's "greatest extent" through conquest.
But, when one looks at "Old Europe" in the Danube Basin 5000 or more years ago, Minoan Crete, Heian Japan, Renaissance Italy and Languedoc (Provence/the Toulousaine/Bordeaux/Perigord during the 12th and 13th centuries) one doesn't find huge outer-directed enterprises other than economic ones going on. Yet all of those civilzations were "advanced" for their periods.
In the case of Old Europe the one thing not found yet in what seems to have been a highly-evolved and dynamic culture that ran roughly from Budapest to Ploesti and down into northern Greece (as it is today) is the absence of any fortifications of any kind. Much smaller (area-extent) and less-vibrant cultures in Anatolia, Mesopotamia and the Nile Valley of roughly the same time show evidence of fortifications. The presumption is that in the fortified cultures there were wars and conquests, thus the fortifications for protection.
Old Europe didn't have those, yet from other finds of artifacts one discovers that goods (non-organic goods) from all four of those other cultures made their way to Central Europe by means, no doubt, of trade.
Heian Japan formed a delicate and beautiful civilization where, although fights amongst clans did occur, there was no imperialistic expansion to speak of. Again the impetus was economic not martial as the evidence of trade with China, Korea and the Phillipines is in evidence from that period.
Minoan Crete, again, although a vibrant and strong civilization shows no major evidence of fortifications until very late in it's existence as the Dorians began to raid it. Yet, again, it's merchant trade was huge with the Hittites, Babylonians, Egyptians and even the Harappan civilization of the Indus Valley. Not through the means of warfare were the Minoans imperial; they used economic-strength and a de facto dominance of sea-faring.
Harappan civilization shows a wide-spread culture that included the Indus Valley, what was then the Sarasvati Valley (Now mostly the Thar desert probably due to the river changes in the Sarasvati due to seismic activity) and the Central Ganges Valley. Again trade routes to the north, east and west had to have existed as Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and artifacts from the Yangtze Valley are numerous. What isn't numerous are evidence of fortifications.
Both Renaissance Italy and the "troubador" civilization of Provence showed tremendous internecine struggles but no "projected" warfare. Yet each culture is generally regarded as light-years ahead of the other European cultures of their times. Since there are written historical records from those cultures we are aware that they were warlike inside the parameters of their own lands, but used trade and economic influence to establish and maintain flourishing cultures.
QuoteEven if it is for oil though, I don't ->-bleeped-<-ing get what the problem is. We've got bigger guns, better trained military, and better standards of living. The Iraqi people have everything to gain from being conquered and absorbed into America.
Atlantic seaboard cities in the 1760s and 1770s had much to commend a continuing relationship with the British Empire. In doing so they had military protection, huge economic advantages through British imperial trade networks that spanned into the Far East, the Near East and Europe.
Yet a desire to propogate their own trade without the restrictions "for the good of the Empire" and what they found to be regressive taxation: until the 1760s the Brits had operated military and economic networks without taxation to any degree of the colonials, stirred a desire to have a separate political state from what was obviously in the best-interest of all the colonial lands: to remain in the British Empire.
Yet, as we know, they revolted to make their own self-government.
Economically and even socially Cuba and the Phillipines had many advantages in being part of the USA-empire. Yet, again, they decided instead to run-liberation movements instead and strive for their own political and economic independence. Why?
I think the desire of folks to run their own show often trumps any perceived economic or social advantages of being amalgamated into a "higher" civilization.
I imagine German peoples living east of the Rhine and north of the Danube could literally see material advantages in the Pax Romana across the rivers. Yet, they made tremendous struggles in warfare to avoid being absorbed, and succeeded, although one could imagine a high cost culturally and economically to them. They still longed to "do it their own way."
Nichole
I think Nichy's got more education than me on that stupid history crap. So. I'll b a hypocrite and continue to disagree but I won't embarrass myself by trying to debate with her on that topic.
Quote from: daisybelle on November 07, 2008, 05:58:25 PMAs far as restricting the right of the voters to elect whom they wish to be president.... That was what the founding fathers had in mind. From your point of view anyone worldwide should have that chance.... or would you limit this?
Yes, anyone. We're all grown up now. If we want to elect Cesar Chavez or Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong Il to be president, then that should be our right. If we're stupid enough to do it, then we deserve what we get.
In 1789 we had serious reason to be concerned about the possibility of some British loyalist somehow seizing power and destroying America. That hasn't been a remote possibility in at least 100 years.
To the extent that the Constitution is a document that limits rights and enshrines oppression, you can burn it for all I care. "It's in the Constitution" is no more valid an ethical argument for anything than "It's in the Bible."
Quote from: Alyssa M. on November 10, 2008, 02:25:46 PM
To the extent that the Constitution is a document that limits rights and enshrines oppression, you can burn it for all I care. "It's in the Constitution" is no more valid an ethical argument for anything than "It's in the Bible."
I disagree with this statement. I recently had a debate with my dad, who doesn't agree with Prop 8 but who thinks that the law should stand just because the majority voted on it. My arguments to that was that just because the majority thinks something is right doesn't mean it should be law, because the constitution overrules the majority. I don't think people should ever have the right to vote on civil rights issues, because there should be no restrictions on anyone's rights no matter how many people think there should be. He kept going back to the argument that as a democracy we are allowed to vote and whatever the majority votes for should stand, as a true democracy should be.
My final argument to that was that he believes in a democracy without the constitution, whereas I believe in a democracy with the constitution. He believes that anything, no matter what, could potentially be voted on and the majority wins. I say that yes, everything can be voted on and the majority wins, except when it comes to civil rights and human rights or issues explicitly in the constitution. That's where the constitution comes in and overrules the majority. Isn't the constitution what this country was founded on? So why should we disregard it?
Quote from: SarahR on November 10, 2008, 02:56:10 PMThat's where the constitution comes in and overrules the majority. Isn't the constitution what this country was founded on? So why should we disregard it?
I think we agree more that we disagree. I'm just a bit more extreme than you, if I understand you correctly.
I disagree slightly with the notion that our country was founded on the Constitution -- it was founded on the Declaration of Independence, which states that "all men are created equal; that they are Endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that
among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." To me, those are the words that define what America ought to stand for.
The Constitution is a document set up to enforce these principles. It has failed in many instances, but the genius of the framers was to allow it to be amended -- in order to form a "more perfect Union."
I am not willing to wait for the majority of people in 3/4 of the states -- plus supermajorities in both houses of Congress -- to acknowledge that certain rights are fundamental. When the Constitution (U.S. or California)
limits rights, it's not functioning properly.
So I agree with you, except I think that those civil rights and human rights that ought to transcend democratic comment should not be limited to those enumerated in the Constitution. For example, any violation of the E.R.A. is immoral, in my opinion, even without it being in the Constitution. Ownership of slaves was immoral even when the Constitution implicitly endorsed it. And in the unlikely case that Obama is not a "natural-born" citizen, the problem lies with the Constitution, not the election.
The law is the law --- holding an election by making your own rules is to suit your views is wrong. No matter how potentially good the man may be as a President, if he was born in Kenya, he has defrauded the system. Is it the goal of the Democrat party to lie and cheat to win elections? What was the Chicago democrats motto -- vote early and vote often! That party needs to lose the stigma of this anything goes attitude.
If you do not like what the constitution says -- CHANGE IT! I am not opposed to redefining the criteria for our presidents to abide by, but everyone has to play by the rules. It is unacceptable to make concessions which violates the constitution as it is currently written.
This country has not had a perfect history, but I believe the ideals now are available to all to "all men are created equal; that they are Endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." We all start with the same potential... the roads life throws at us might not always be the same, but the more diverse the circumstances the better we have lived our life.
Daisy
Quote from: daisybelle on November 11, 2008, 10:53:11 AMeveryone has to play by the rules.
I don't do "rules." I do "right" and "wrong."
I generally defer to rules out of humility that tells me my sense of "right" and "wrong" might not be correct. But sometimes my feeling that the rules are unjust wins out. Making appeals to "following the rules" will get you nowhere with me.
--
Also, this is about Arnie, not Barry. Barry's from Hawaii. If you think he's not, then I've got an illegitimate black McCain daughter to introduce to you. It's the worst of scurrilous conspiracy-mongering. So please drop it.
~Alyssa
Arnie played by the rules as he did not run for the presidency... sorry, Arnie had the sense of RIGHT not to run.
If you are closed minded - don't even bother clicking
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6_k3NtXZs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6_k3NtXZs)
Berg makes a good case...
QuoteBarack Obama was born on 4th August, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii. His father Barack Obama, Sr was born in Nyanza Province, Kenya
People, people. Yeesh, I go away to work for a few days and everyone whips out the Kool-Aid.
Arnie played by the rules as he did not run for the presidency... sorry, Arnie had the sense of RIGHT not to run.
Well, it just might be - that pesky Constitution aside, that Reagan's "Big Tent" Republican Party, turned into a religious revival, and there is no way that Arnold was going to win the party nomination, the law aside. He supports gay rights and medical marijuana, doesn't go to church, is married into the Kennedy family and is more socially liberal than Obama is. You think that will win in the current Republican environment?
Not only that, there were issues that didn't rate very much in Cali, but would matter in a national elections like the steroid deal, the 'gay soft core porn' he did (or perhaps it was just an educational film on how to shower), his time as a Big, Huge, Supergreasy Hollywood type show biz star where he acted like a Hollywood type star. We're mature enough here (or jaded - remember he is Gov because the guy before him got recalled for being boring) to not care much about soft core porn, or the fact that he was banging starlets like Brett Farve throws passes. On a national stage, within the Republican party, I'd be about as likely to get the nod.
I don't do "rules." I do "right" and "wrong."
But the USA does not do right and wrong, but rather - as you should have learned in like high school civics - "We are a nation of laws." There is no notion of right and wrong (or god) in the Constitution).
Is it the goal of the Democrat party to lie and cheat to win elections?
No more than the Republicans who do the same.
I disagree slightly with the notion that our country was founded on the Constitution -- it was founded on the Declaration of Independence,
F. 100% dead wrong. The DoI was about independence from British, and said little to nothing about government - other to note, at length, that any government run by George III sucked. Nor, was the Constitution the way to enshrine those ideals. Hell, it wasn't even the first government was it? No, that would have been the Articles of Confederation. So, basically the Constitution is, in and of itself, an amendment to a previous system of American government.
The Constitution is a document set up to enforce these principles
Oops, not even close, but thanks for playing our game. Where the DoI stated, as you correctly said, it was all about life, liberty and happiness, (which of course is in the original, "life, liberty, and property" and not happiness, but you knew that didn't you) the Constitution says that We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. It is, in fact, mostly a commercial document, its really about trade, money, standards, and business. Because, the business of America is business after all, and 'twas ever thus. It sought a very small, very limited federal government to work with very powerful states over commercial issues. I would suggest, the basic text for all understanding of the American Constitution, Charles Beard's An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution.
I don't do "rules." I do "right" and "wrong."
But the USA does not do right and wrong, but rather - as you should have learned in like high school civics - "We are a nation of laws." There is no notion of right and wrong (or god) in the Constitution).
My point is that I don't think that "constitutionality" or "legality" are interesting categories to discuss, unless you're discussing what ought to be constitutional or legal. If I choose to violate or ignore laws that I consider unjust, sue me or arrest me. But don't try to shame me by telling me that it's illegal. In general it's not much of an issue for me, since I'm quite meek and conservative in my actions and mostly just go along with what society (i.e. the law) tells me.
--
I disagree slightly with the notion that our country was founded on the Constitution -- it was founded on the Declaration of Independence,
F. 100% dead wrong.
The Constitution is a document set up to enforce these principles
Oops, not even close, but thanks for playing our game.
Look, it's a semantic argument regarding the definition of "founded." The principles of legitimate governmental authority are laid out in the Declaration; the form of our particular government is laid out in the Constitution. Do you disagree? As you said, there's no God or Right or Wrong in the Constitution. In fact, there is only the slightest hint of any moral argument in the Constitution's preamble. The Declaration (before diving into particular grievances) is all about the Laws of Nature and Nature's God.
I'm personally more interested in the moral basis for the form of government, not the form itself. The Constitution has little to say about the moral basis. So, for me, the Declaration speaks more to what interests me about the founding of this country. As to what the Constitution's framers intended, you're not a strict constructionist, are you? If so, I give you my condolences.
--
So it's the same point on both issues: when people base moral arguments upon legal documents, they have their logic reversed. It is the laws that should be based on moral considerations. I'm not alone in feeling this way -- that's why people are infuriated by legal decisions based on what they deem to be "technicalities," and that's why we admire people who engage in civil disobedience to overturn unjust laws.
What legal document? The DoI was a radical screed that used whatever it could as a way of promoting a violent overthrow of an established government via revolution.
The other is/was a rather conservative document that laid out a framework for a limited federal government.
I don't think there is a moral basis for government, as morals are something that are only for living beings, not institutions, which may, or may not have ethics, which are not the same thing.
Well, I didn't realize this would be such a 'popular' topic, creating such a heated debate. Daisy, you sure sound like a lot of sour grapes to me. I will never understand how a Trans person can be a member of the Republican party, the way it is nowadays. The Republican party, under the rule of Ronald Reagan, put religion into our politics. I see that as the beginning of our major problems. Now, we have fundamentalist Hell raising preachers starting problems, then walking away from the messes. I was not attributing the problems we have to John McCain, you read that into it. But if you check out his voting record, he did vote with Bush most of the time. And getting the hell beat out of you repeatedly does not make you more qualified to lead.
Please, no one take offense to this, I am no way a racist. I have studied this. Even though Obama won, propositions 8 and 2 in California and Florida, respectively, won also. This is most likely because more African Americans voted in this election than ever before. And, African American folks tend to be more religiously fundamental than Caucasian Americans. They DO NOT like homosexuality, rather, their religions condemn it. I know a lot of African American people, and the ones who go to church are a lot more conservative than the white people than I know. Take it for what it's worth.... that's my opinion. No blame, just fact.
Trying to blame what happened in California on black people makes no sense because they simply do not comprise a big enough percentage of the electorate to swing a vote. MAYBE if they ALL voted the same way, but they didn't. Just a majority did. Like a majority of every race I've seen graphed did.
Plain and simple Equality California ran a terrible campaign. They were slow with ads, they let the Pro people set the tone, their outreach was horribly disorganized and they didn't have people on the ground soon enough. Whereas the Pro side utilized the mad on the ground skills of Mormon door-to-door folks, were well funded from the start, and campaigned hard in neighborhoods of color, where our people *did not go* until the very last minute. Oh and guess what the pro side were telling people when they knocked on those doors? "Your church will be forced to marry gay people or lose it's tax exemption" "Your kids will be taught about gay marriage in school" "Barack Obama opposes same sex marriage". Lies, lies, and twisting of truths. And we weren't there to correct it. Also did you notice the lack of people of color in our advertising? Hmmm that's a great way to make people feel included.
The Pro people had been there, on the ground, in the neighborhoods, for weeks when we got there after spending money on rallies in San Francisco and Los Angeles. They were there with tried and true Mormon scripts of "if they're interested in this, go this way, if they're interested in that, go that way". We spent way too much time preaching to the choir and not enough making phone calls, knocking on doors, and sending out fliers with Barack Obama's face on them with: "Barack Obama is AGAINST Proposition 8".
That's not to ignore the homophobia that does exist in communities of color, but that's not why we lost this campaign.
QuoteThat's not to ignore the homophobia that does exist
It is the fear that the culture will change. It is the fear of unrestrained sex in public, both in schools work and all public places. The 30 second sound bites always show arrests of the fringe sexual activities.
Quote from: lisagurl on November 24, 2008, 08:13:11 PMThe 30 second sound bites always show arrests of the fringe sexual activities.
Our sensationalist media does seem to enjoy highlighting the "worst" of every community.
Okay, I'll give you that's what happened in California. But Florida is a different kind of place, totally. We are in the deep South, and have a large African American presence here. More than 2/3 of the people I work with are thus. Also, there is a huge retirement 'community' here, and these folks are mainly conservatives from the Midwest. The also fear gays and Lesbians, almost as much as terrorists. They see them as an attack on our survival, because to them, gays represent the very tearing of the fiber of morality, whether they be religious or not. Equality Florida led a good campaign against proposition 2, but it was obviously too little, too late. There was simply too much to over come. Florida is a VERY backward state. I still believe that the religious right of the African American community mainly voted in proposition 2 here. If you don't believe me, just visit and talk to some of our people. It would enlighten you.
Quotegays represent the very tearing of the fiber of morality, whether they be religious or not
It is not morality as much as culture. Straight people fear the aggressive behavior of gays. The do not want to even be looked at with the idea that they are attractive to another man.
Quote from: nickie on November 24, 2008, 07:06:55 PM
Well, I didn't realize this would be such a 'popular' topic, creating such a heated debate. Daisy, you sure sound like a lot of sour grapes to me. I will never understand how a Trans person can be a member of the Republican party, the way it is nowadays.
No sour grapes here... I would have voted potentially for Hillary --- who I see more as a moderate than Obama.
And sorry justify what you want --- but I never thought Gore or Kerry(who would want a betrayor or the military trust in the WhiteHouse -- note Jane FOnda and had the bravery to admit she was wrong) were viable candidates, nor DOle when he ran against Clinton.
Quote from: nickie on November 24, 2008, 07:06:55 PM
The Republican party, under the rule of Ronald Reagan, put religion into our politics. I see that as the beginning of our major problems.
I believe and I welcome you to prove me wrong... that Reagan is what brought down the communist RUssia that eventually amounted to the tearing down of the Iron Curtain and Berlin wall. Have you ever visited eastern europe before the Iron curtain came down...... I did and it was not anything like western europe.
Quote from: nickie on November 24, 2008, 07:06:55 PM
I was not attributing the problems we have to John McCain, you read that into it. But if you check out his voting record, he did vote with Bush most of the time. And getting the hell beat out of you repeatedly does not make you more qualified to lead.
No getting beat the hell out of shows the troops under him that he stood the ideals of American Honor and would not give anything to the North Vietnamese no matter what they did to him. Can you say the same? If you found yourself in the military would you respect this man for the trials and tribulations he went through. Could you last even one week before giving in?????
Quote from: nickie on November 24, 2008, 07:06:55 PM
Please, no one take offense to this, I am no way a racist. I have studied this. Even though Obama won, propositions 8 and 2 in California and Florida, respectively, won also. This is most likely because more African Americans voted in this election than ever before. And, African American folks tend to be more religiously fundamental than Caucasian Americans. They DO NOT like homosexuality, rather, their religions condemn it. I know a lot of African American people, and the ones who go to church are a lot more conservative than the white people than I know. Take it for what it's worth.... that's my opinion. No blame, just fact.
I think this might possibly be true... but so what? It does not change things now. Either you learn to live within the propostiions, or you use the legal system to contest their constitutionality. Either way I see this as a win for SameSex Marriages. Ummm let me see -- two states came forward and actually voted on this as a question giving the idea credibility. Sure it was voted down, but now a law can come into question before the Higher courts of the land. I think this was the intention all along. But I might be wrong.
Daisy
No getting beat the hell out of shows the troops under him that he stood the ideals of American Honor and would not give anything to the North Vietnamese no matter what they did to him. Can you say the same? If you found yourself in the military would you respect this man for the trials and tribulations he went through. Could you last even one week before giving in?
Given that, it qualifies him as a hero, but not a commander or leader, it makes his service to the nation good enough to almost deserve a walk on the Keating charges, which he got. Still, its not what is required to be president. Given the two of them, I think Patton was hella more heroic on almost any given day of the war then Ike was in his entire life. Yet, I have no doubt that Ike made a much better president then Patton would have. It takes more than just being a hero.
Now, hell, if I had to choose which one 'I'd have a beer with' as the question goes, I'd pick McCain. He has a similar sense of humor to me, is very much a 'party' person, and his wife owns the brewery, so that's win, win, win. Yet, I think Obama has a deeper understanding of policy, of economics, of government and governing then John has.
Is Obama going to be some sort of savior? Some great heroic president (and being a hero president is different than a war hero) who faced great odds and overcame them? Well, the second part of that is sure 'nuff in place, cause huge problems we got. Is he going to find the way out, or around that? We'll see, but I doubt it. He might be more to the left of Hillary, but he's no leftist (and I say that speaking as one myself) its just that Hillary is only but a shade to the left of the Neo-Cons. But the solutions are going to be way beyond any old notions of 'right' and 'left' or 'liberal' and 'conservative' - all that nonesense is pretty much obsolete as you read this. These are new problems, they will require new solutions.
Quotethat Reagan is what brought down the communist RUssia
It was Gorbachev and Afghanistan. Russia could not afford to continue the arms race and be bogged down in Afghanistan while the communist form of economics gave people no incentive.
Russia could not afford to continue the arms race
I think that's the key. We just spent them into the ground. However when they stopped, we didn't (gotta have a new enemy right) so now were going the same route. oops.
And granted, as they used to say in the USSR, "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us" the economic system sucked big hairy ones. But we seem to be running out of incentives pretty fast too.
Quote from: tekla on November 28, 2008, 01:51:37 AM
No getting beat the hell out of shows the troops under him that he stood the ideals of American Honor and would not give anything to the North Vietnamese no matter what they did to him. Can you say the same? If you found yourself in the military would you respect this man for the trials and tribulations he went through. Could you last even one week before giving in?
Given that, it qualifies him as a hero, but not a commander or leader, it makes his service to the nation good enough to almost deserve a walk on the Keating charges, which he got. Still, its not what is required to be president. Given the two of them, I think Patton was hella more heroic on almost any given day of the war then Ike was in his entire life. Yet, I have no doubt that Ike made a much better president then Patton would have. It takes more than just being a hero.
I have no doubt McCain is a hero. It definitely earns him the respect of the military.
But I think there is a difference between being a hero and being Honorable. There are war heroes that saved their crew with bravery in the darkest moments in battle.
The fact here though is McCain was not in the heat of battle, he was captured, and the only thing he could save was his American ideals. So maybe we idenify him as an Honorable Hero. The point I am making is he has lived his life in public service. And it angers me to see people on the left besmirch his reputation as another Bush. He is way more than other current President. He has Character, Honor, and has showed the bravery to face another day of beatings sticking to his American Ideals.
As far as the Patton versus Ike comparison. I think Patton knew how to win a battle... Ike knew how to win a war. In addition Patton would have potentially said something to get himself in trouble.
Daisy
QuoteHe is way more than other current President
Yes he picked Palin as the next best thing if he was to die. Having leadership by throwing dice is not prudent.
I've been to West Point (where both Patton and Ike went) a few times, and have talked with several people who graduated from there (or the Navy/Airforce versions) and as best as I can tell those schools are divided into three parts. There was a 'win battles' part, there was an 'administrate winning battles' part and there was 'design and operate technology needed to win battles' part. In other words, there were military field commanders, administrators and engineers. Patton was the first, and Ike the second.
Each in their own way proved to be about as good at doing what they did, as anyone who ever did it.
As a military commander its hard to find one who was as good a warrior and leader as Patton. As someone who plans and administrates and arranges vast supplies and manpower over huge areas what Ike did was simply mindblowing. Imagine for a moment, not only assembling all the people and gear you need to invade Europe in one place, but doing that without getting caught at it.
But also imagine that if the figures are correct, then Patton's 3rd Army, during the years 1944-1945, at the apex of the war in Europe, accounted for 55% of the Germans who were killed in battle, or died later because of battle wounds. 55% Patton killed half the Germans, the rest of the Allies, the other half. Amazing.
But given those two skill sets, the President is much more about administration then winning battles.
THE WORLD IS RUN BY THE SUPER RICH They set up Reagan by setting up Carter to lose see = http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/october-surprise.html (http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/october-surprise.html)
The group BILDERBERG has been running things since 1954 and they are the military industrial complex that we were warned about after WW11
reagan was a figurehead just like Clinton and well Bush Sr and Jr both did what they could to undermine the USA in retaliation because their grandfater / father prescott Bush supported Hitler and lost all that $$ ..
Get over the false truth about america being about true red blooded americans except for people like my dad and many thousands of others who were used and abused as we keep seeing this happen to this day as they abuse the troops for $$ gains and profits
Here read some of the BUSH CLINTON REGIME = http://bushclintonhurtchildren.blogspot.com/ (http://bushclintonhurtchildren.blogspot.com/)
don't believe your history books they were created for propaganda
OOOOKKAAAYYYY....
Then how does Obama fit into your little Conspiracy Plan?
And Clinton held the White House for 8 years.... How did he fit ???
Oh come on, the industrialists have had control over the presidency since about 1900 with the election of McKinley, prior to that they pretty much held the Senate since the 1850s. The large holders of land controlled the House, but what the industrial proved in the US as well as England, is that old land money can't compare with industrial money.