www.commondreams.org/views06/0517-27.htm (http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0517-27.htm)

www.commondreams.org/views06/0517-27.htm (http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0517-27.htm)


Ahh c'mon! The article is written by a Princeton professor and we know ALL professors are just liberals with their "liberal agenda". :lolhit: (my repub impersonation)

Nothing like writing history before it is even history.

Buchanan

Obama

Lucky for history it is not written by people who lived at the time.

ermmm....

Buchanan has been dead for a few years (1868)

:)

ermmm....

Buchanan has been dead for a few years (1868)

:)
Pat's still kicking....and if he didn't make more on MSNBC, i suspect he would have ran this year.

Ahh c'mon! The article is written by a Princeton professor and we know ALL professors are just liberals with their "liberal agenda". :lolhit: (my repub impersonation)
i know Rolling Stone is the first place i turn for information in a crisis.:bike:

yeh, what do historians know about history? :rolleyes:

yeh, what do historians know about history? :rolleyes:
they're entitled to their opinion, but if you ask 400 Native American historians, you'll have 500 say it was Andrew Jackson.

yeh, what do historians know about history?

The cons will wait for some think tank employee like Dinesh Disouza to rewrite history for them again.

they're entitled to their opinion, but if you ask 400 Native American historians, you'll have 500 say it was Andrew Jackson.
Jackson was a freakin' lunatic. If there ever was a completely insane president, it was him.

Jackson was a freakin' lunatic. If there ever was a completely insane president, it was him.
wut?! just because he beat a would-be assassin with his cane and had to be pulled off by his staff?

wut?! just because he beat a would-be assassin with his cane and had to be pulled off by his staff?
Yes, that, among other things... When he led the massacres of Indians he told his men to skin the Indians and bring back the hides as "presents for their sweethearts". What a pleasant dude.

yeh, what do historians know about history? :rolleyes:


I am sure they know a lot about history, the problem is when you can't overlook your own agenda to give an honest account of the present you live in.

Yes, that, among other things... When he led the massacres of Indians he told his men to skin the Indians and bring back the hides as "presents for their sweethearts". What a pleasant dude.

He didn't like the English either.
When he was age 10 or so, he served in the Revolution as a runner--a kid who transferred messages. He was captured by the British and as punishment he had to clean some officer's boots. Because he didn't do it right, the guy smacked him across the head with his sword.
Jackson hated all British until the day he died.

Personally I don't think he was that bad and some of the stories about him have probably been exaggerated. You gotta love a guy who dueled with a guy and killed him because he insulted his wife.:D

Yes, that, among other things... When he led the massacres of Indians he told his men to skin the Indians and bring back the hides as "presents for their sweethearts". What a pleasant dude.
a reasonable statement considering his men's sweethearts were living in fear of being massacred by those same Indians.

back when men were men and politicians had some balls

Bush, as of today, is not a "good president".. he's average at best, but in my opinion is in the lower 33% of presidents we have had.

His "legacy" will be decided in about 20 years, when we see what the fall out is on our imposing democracy on the bee's nest that is the middle east.

If it is a success, and there are treaties, peace, and kum-bayah... he will be an Abe Lincoln, hated in his time but marveled for his vision.

If it is a failure, then he will be seen as a Jackson or Ulysses Grant... insane or not qualified for the job.

Trav is right on though.. about history being evaluated once all the storylines have played out.

back when men were men and politicians had some balls

And George Washington leading his army.. I would freakin blow a load if a president of ours went on the front lines and lead our troops into battle. THAT takes balls.

Bush, as of today, is not a "good president".. he's average at best, but in my opinion is in the lower 33% of presidents we have had.

His "legacy" will be decided in about 20 years, when we see what the fall out is on our imposing democracy on the bee's nest that is the middle east.

If it is a success, and there are treaties, peace, and kum-bayah... he will be an Abe Lincoln, hated in his time but marveled for his vision.

If it is a failure, then he will be seen as a Jackson or Ulysses Grant... insane or not qualified for the job.

Trav is right on though.. about history being evaluated once all the storylines have played out.

I can Prove that Bush was a pretty good President.
Bush Inherited a Recession from Clinton.
Bush managed to Alleviate the Recession,and create the
most favorable market for Home Loans and Home ownership,all the
while creating The longest period of Low Unemployment and
Growth since the post WWII boom.
Bush inerited al-Qaeda infiltrators { allowed to stay here,undeterred
by Clinton,even though their Visa's were expired }
Bush finally did somethin about al-Qaeda and Saddam.
All Clinton and Senators did was Talk the Talk { Yakeddy yak yak }.
Bush Built up the depleted CIA/FBI under Hot Dog Clinton's
miserable term of constant toothy grins and gloatings,while
Reducing our Military and ability to stay secure { CIA/FBI }.

Bush gave Americans needed tax relief,and proved yet again that a Capital
Gains reduction could and will help spur investments and create
Revenues.He managed to fight 2 wars and reduce the deficit thru
Revenues via Capital Gains cut.

Bush appointed 2 important Supreme Court Justices to an already
silly panel,made up of Liberal lillies of the field.

I could Go On.

And George Washington leading his army.. I would freakin blow a load if a president of ours went on the front lines and lead our troops into battle. THAT takes balls.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Washington led any armies during his time as President.

You gotta love a guy who dueled with a guy and killed him because he insulted his wife.:D
Sounds like a man's man to me. He'd get my vote on that alone. :)

Sounds like a man's man to me. He'd get my vote on that alone. :)

Former Minnesota Governor Jesse " the Body " Ventura was a
Pol and a Man's Man.Former Frogman.
He appeared on *- Hannity & Colmes - and was talkin seriously
about a conspiracy to blow-up {detonate} those World Trade Towers.
That's the kind of Man's Man,I could do without.





* in the last 2 weeks.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Washington led any armies during his time as President.
Whiskey Rebellion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion)

Whiskey Rebellion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion)
Ah, right. I forgot about that.

he also lead the fight against the British at philadelphia... Ben Franklin designed the fort and Washington was the general of the troops.

he also lead the fight against the British at philadelphia... Ben Franklin designed the fort and Washington was the general of the troops.
when he was president????

he also lead the fight against the British at philadelphia... Ben Franklin designed the fort and Washington was the general of the troops.
Yeahhh that was not during his Presidency. There was a war with the British before he was President and a bit after, but not really during.

Tho George was practically a god, he still had a few faults. He was terribly vain and could be pompous. He also had a terrible temper and once picked up two big soldiers that were fighting by the scruff of their necks and shook them like rats. He'd also hang deserters and troublemakers.

He was also fat and John Hancock made frequent hilarious remarks about how fat he was.

IOW, there's NO WAY he'd be well thought if he was around today, I'll bet. I'll always love him tho.

Tho George was practically a god, he still had a few faults. He was terribly vain and could be pompous. He also had a terrible temper and once picked up two big soldiers that were fighting by the scruff of their necks and shook them like rats. He'd also hang deserters and troublemakers.

He was also fat and John Hancock made frequent hilarious remarks about how fat he was.

IOW, there's NO WAY he'd be well thought if he was around today, I'll bet. I'll always love him tho.
First in war, first in peace, and still first in the hearts and minds of his countrymen.

Gen. Washington still holds the highest rank in the Armed Forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_of_the_Armies#General_of_the_Armies_of_the _United_States).

1.First in war, first in peace, and still first in the hearts and minds of his countrymen.

2.Gen. Washington still holds the highest rank in the Armed Forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_of_the_Armies#General_of_the_Armies_of_the _United_States).


1. "Lighthorse" Harry Lee

2. Didn't Grant hold that same rank--General of the Armies?

"I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality." - George Washington

You are one simple son of a bitch Dhram.

You are one simple son of a bitch Dhram.

You just made me spit water on my monitor! :lolhit:

I am sure he saw the word liberal in the quote and assumed George was a liberal, as in modern day deomcratic party liberal. The guy made a post about how a nazi was a republican candidate for crying out loud.

I am sure he saw the word liberal in the quote and assumed George was a liberal, as in modern day deomcratic party liberal. The guy made a post about how a nazi was a republican candidate for crying out loud.

It took Dharm a solid 3 hours to find that quote, Trav, proving that George was a notorious liberal.

Considering that "liberal" 200 years ago meant about the opposite of liberal today.... I'd say Dharm may not have proved his point. :p

SO was Washington really fat? I never thought of him as a fat guy. Adams on the other hand, he was portly.

SO was Washington really fat? I never thought of him as a fat guy. Adams on the other hand, he was portly.

He wasn't really fat, but he had a gigantic butt.

Burr and some other guys made lots of jokes about his fat butt and how George was so vain, he insisted on wearing his old French and Indian war uniform even tho he was too hefty to fit in it, and how you could hear his pants ripping when he stood up or sat down, and Hancock made lots of jokes about George's poor horse. I couldn't help but laugh when i read some of that stuff.

WE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO LAUGH AT A FOUNDING FATHER

Considering that "liberal" 200 years ago meant about the opposite of liberal today....

That is 100% untrue. Liberal means exactly the same thing today that it did then. Only the issues at hand have changed.

I am sure he saw the word liberal in the quote and assumed George was a liberal, as in modern day deomcratic party liberal.

If ignorance is bliss, you must lead a very blissful life.


The guy made a post about how a nazi was a republican candidate for crying out loud.

No, actually the post was about a Republican candidate speaking at a Nazi rally, but whatever, its not like you ever let the facts get in the way of your blathering anyway.

You just made me spit water on my monitor! :lolhit:
I know, I always think I'm listening to drill sergeant when he uses that line. :D

That is 100% untrue. Liberal means exactly the same thing today that it did then. Only the issues at hand have changed.
You're kidding, right? Liberals in 1800 believed in minimal government interference in the economy (and basically everything else). And yes, the issues have changed - meaning that you can't equate the old fashioned political labels with modern ones at all.

You're kidding, right? Liberals in 1800 believed in minimal government interference in the economy (and basically everything else). And yes, the issues have changed - meaning that you can't equate the old fashioned political labels with modern ones at all.
Uh oh, prepare to be baffled, DF....you're engaging the ONLY poster on Allforums who's never lost a debate. :rolleyes:

Uh oh, prepare to be baffled, DF....you're engaging the ONLY poster on Allforums who's never lost a debate. :rolleyes:

Yea, ego is a bitch... and then you marry one!

:lolhit:

1. "Lighthorse" Harry Lee

2. Didn't Grant hold that same rank--General of the Armies?

oh no! Ren! read more! not just General of the Armies!, General of the Armies of the United States!!!

what's the dif, you ask? 6 stars vs. 7.:thumbs:

oh no! Ren! read more! not just General of the Armies!, General of the Armies of the United States!!!

what's the dif, you ask? 6 stars vs. 7.:thumbs:

This is what confused me:


"Grant's willingness to fight and ability to win impressed President Lincoln, who appointed him lieutenant general in the regular army—a rank not awarded since George Washington (or Winfield Scott's brevet appointment), recently re-authorized by the U.S. Congress with Grant in mind—on March 2, 1864. On March 12, Grant became general-in-chief of all the armies of the United States."

He still woulda had to salute George......as well he should.

He was also fat and John Hancock made frequent hilarious remarks about how fat he was.


Hmmmm, I know John Hancock often referred to King George as "Fat George".

You may be thinking of Henry Knox.

George Washington also made comments about how fat Knox was.

As G.W. famously said to Henry Knox (as told in Knox's diary) at the crossing of the Delaware as Knox was getting into the boat, "shift your fat ass Harry lest ye swamp the boat."

This is what confused me:


"Grant's willingness to fight and ability to win impressed President Lincoln, who appointed him lieutenant general in the regular army—a rank not awarded since George Washington (or Winfield Scott's brevet appointment), recently re-authorized by the U.S. Congress with Grant in mind—on March 2, 1864. On March 12, Grant became general-in-chief of all the armies of the United States."

He still woulda had to salute George......as well he should.
it didn't help that Congress didn't clarify the matter until 1976....does anything move slower than government besides glaciers?

Hmmmm, I know John Hancock often referred to King George as "Fat George".

You may be thinking of Henry Knox.

George Washington also made comments about how fat Knox was.

As G.W. famously said to Henry Knox (as told in Knox's diary) at the crossing of the Delaware as Knox was getting into the boat, "shift your fat ass Harry lest ye swamp the boat."

No, I'm specifically referring to John Hancock, first signer of the Declaration and wealthy Boston businessman.
He had wanted to lead the Continental Army and was jealous that George got the job instead of him. Thus his insults towards George WASHINGTON.

George's REAL words to his men before they crossed the Delaware have been lost to most. He said, "Get into the boat."

it didn't help that Congress didn't clarify the matter until 1976....does anything move slower than government besides glaciers?

Well , yes......our mail.:lolhit: