Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Oliver Willis
Like Kryptonite To Stupid
-
-
Breaking News
- Tila Tequila Live Streaming Mental Meltdown
- 31 Die In Chinese Mine Blast In Heilongjiang Province, 82 Trapped
- Victoria Justice Stars In New Nickeloden Show “Victorious”
- CERN’s Large Hadron Collider Back Up And Running
- Megan Fox Alive For Transformers 3
- Maryna Linchuk @ 2009 Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show
- Madison Parker Works Out
- Sony Reveals Lame Attempt To Fight iTunes
- Brian Thomas: UK Man Gets Away With Killing Wife In His Sleep
- Olivia Wilde @ US Weekly Hot Hollywood 2009 Party
Live News
Heckuva job, Bush admin. We will remember.
OT, sorry to cost you money, Oliver, but I have now blocked Google syndication ads. I can’t stand seeing Ann Coulter and Newt Gingrich’s smiling/grimacing mugs importuning me to sign up for their crap anymore. Google ads apparently suck balls, if that’s what they think readers of lefty sites want to see.
Well, it’s 12 noon on the East Coast and that makes it official; Barack Obama has now successfully kept America safer longer than George W. Bush.
A tragedy beyond words.
Duros and Liberalrob: It is obscenely partisan, and intellectually dishonest to make such remarks. I could just as easily say that the vapid , apologetic remarks of Pres Obama in Cairo, and his general attitude towards things Middle Eastern is puffing up the chests, and providing false bravado to potential terrorists all over the Middle East.
It would just as “true” as what you said.
Duros, you should be particularly ashamed, because we went 7 and one – half years without an Islamofascist attack on our soil. I hope to God Pres Obama, can duplicate that for four years, as he is bound to be replaced in 2012.
Pataki trying to out-Rudy Rudy by attacking Obama
I remember that day perfectly. I was on an island without TV but with a radio. I woke up when the first plane hit the WTC. It was 6am. When the second hit I called my wife on my cell and she turned on the TV and cried the entire time. It was wrong, it was tragic and it’s still reverberating like the aftershocks of a 9.6 earthquake. Forever changed the West.
Frank DiSalle: I could just as easily say that the vapid , apologetic remarks of Pres Obama in Cairo, and his general attitude towards things Middle Eastern is puffing up the chests, and providing false bravado to potential terrorists all over the Middle East.
It would just as “true” as what you said.
Because someone “puffing up their chests” is the same as an attack that kills 3000 civilians.
Frank DiSalle: because we went 7 and one – half years without an Islamofascist attack on our soil.
Gee. Most other presidents made it a full eight years. What’s your point, Frank?
No, don’t you get it? Republican Presidents get one free terrorist attack that doesn’t count.
Clinton and Carter didn’t, Sean. Carter didn’t even make it four years. Thanks for proclaiming your stupidity.
Nice to see that Oliver recovered the slightest bit of sense with this posting. Not so nice to see that the regular gang of idiots are more than eager to pick up the slack.
J.
on our soil?
I realize you have special circumstances, freD (being a moron), but US embassies are “our soil.” That includes embassies in Tehran in 1979, as well as Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam in 1998.
I’d have to double-check it, but I’m fairly certain that the World Trade Centers were US territory in 1993. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
And United States warships are moving pieces of sovereign territory — even when they’re in a Yemenese port.
Come on, Sean, break out the shovels. You gotta move those goalposts AGAIN…
J.
I’ll take false equivalency for $2,000, Alex!
Ah…the beautiful blue lights….a call to… public service? Friggin’ morons.
US embassies are “our soil.”
If that’s the metric you choose, Mr. Tea, then you’ll need to re-evaluate the number of years the Bush/Cheney team “kept America safe” won’t you?
Sorry, Jesse. I apologize. I took the discussion to mean, you know, the actual words uttered.
Frank DiSalle: because we went 7 and one – half years without an Islamofascist attack on our soil.
Gee. Most other presidents made it a full eight years. What’s your point, Frank?
Since I was never issued my Sooper-Sekrit Libberul Decoder Ring, I took “an Islamofascist attack on our soil” to mean just that.
Let me spell it out for you:
In 1979, Islamofascists invaded and occupied sovereign US territory — our embassy in Iran.
In 1993, Islamofascists tried to blow up the World Trade Centers.
In 1998, Islamofascists tried to blow up two United States embassies in Africa.
In 2000, Islamofascists bombed and nearly sank the USS Cole.
All of those attacks were on sovereign United States territory.
The first occurred on President Jimmy Carter’s watch.
The others, under President Bill Clinton.
If history offends you, Jesse, then tough shit.
J.
Ah…the beautiful blue lights….a call to… public service?
willie, if you’d prefer to see those lights as a call to invade random countries, go right ahead. No one is stopping you.
Let me spell it out for you:
Now please allow me to return the favor, Mr. Tea.
Folks like you and Frank like to boast that the Bush/Cheney team “kept America safe” for seven and a half years. Problem is, they were in office for a tad more than that. Starting the “kept us safe” clock after the most calamitous security failure in our nation’s history is a transparently biased was to keep score.
And “Islamofascist” is a made up word.
I’m with Frank on this one. 9/11 was more accurately a mulligan for Bush. What matters is that he miraculously made it through the entire rest of his term with only one homegrown anthrax-terrorist attack on American soil.
Quaker, let mespell it out for you.
Sean stupidly said that “Most other presidents made it a full eight years” in relation to Islamofascist (a perfectly accurate description, but insert your own PC term if you’re afraid of honesty) attacks. Blatantly, flagrantly, idiotically false on its face.
Bush didn’t. Clinton didn’t. The first Bush, arguably, did. Reagan is arguable. Carter didn’t, and he only had four years. And it was during his administration that the problem started growing again, so prior administrations don’t really count. Unless you want to include the Barbary Pirates, but that would be pointless.
I’m glad to see you so willing to help Sean in moving the goalposts, though. Those things are heavy.
J.
For some reason Jaye missed that little attack in Lebanon during Reagan’s term, causing Ronnie to cut and run.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing
In the ‘Response’ article in the link I see that France retaliated but the US did not.
Ah yes, it always ends up here.
Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.
“OK, you’ve covered your ass.” “Now watch this drive.”
Since we’re comparing Presidents.
Amount of Americans killed by terrorism by 1:58pm EST on
September 11, 1977
September 11, 1981
September 11, 1989
September 11, 1993
September 11, 2001
September 11, 2009
?
Thanks.
“willie, if you’d prefer to see those lights as a call to invade random countries, go right ahead. No one is stopping you.”
Nice non sequitur.
Thank you buma, you beat me to the punch of pointing out that our brave superpatriot wingnuts for some reason always neglect to point out that little incident under the sniveling coward Reagan, and the dire consequences to our nation since of his decision to quite literally cut and run.
United 93 should have won the Oscar, even if it did star Sledge Hammer.
Nice non sequitur.
That’s Latin, willie. it means “does not follow.” My riposte to your sarcasm follows quite well.
Bush didn’t. Clinton didn’t. The first Bush, arguably, did. Reagan is arguable. Carter didn’t, and he only had four years.
I understand perfectly, Mr. Tea. However, if you want to define “American soil” to include embassies, warships, and any other U.S. property, then the claim that Mr. Bush “kept America safe” for the portion of his term after 9/11/01 doesn’t really parse, does it?
Pick your standard and apply it consistently.
Quaker in the Basement, there was nothing random in the two countries, but I wish Bush would have added a few, at random to keep the world more off guard.
All kidding aside, I still pray for those lost that fateful day, by they rest in peace.-Impaler
Apparently JT belongs to the “I make up the rules!” school of debate.
Hey Impaler, what about Lincoln? Lots of deaths on our soil on that Republican’s watch!
Since terrorism looks for maximum effect with minimal effort, a debate over terror on American soil seems pretty irrelevant. Al qaeda quit hitting America head on when that sleeping giant was awakened, making maximum effect with minimal effort quite difficult. They went to work in Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Spain, etc… instead.
A better topic of debate might be terrorism worldwide.
Duros, you should be particularly ashamed, because we went 7 and one – half years without an Islamofascist (sic) attack on our soil.
Too bad about the first 9 months then, eh?
The worst terrorist attack on US soil previously was under Clinton, yes, I do remember that. Oklahoma City.
there was nothing random in the two countries, but I wish Bush would have added a few, at random to keep the world more off guard.
What, just to show the world what a badass mo-fo bush is? Okay, then.
Yeah, derF, let’s talk about terrorism world wide , so we can make America (read “Pres Bush”) responsible for every terrorist attack in 8 years.
Good enough. Then Pres Obama’s headcount begins Jan 21, 2008.
what a badass mo-fo
Shut your mouth!
But I’m talkin’ ’bout Bush!
We can dig it!
there was nothing random in the two countries,
Impy, you’re not one of those “Saddam was involved in 9/11″ types, are you?
what a badass mo-fo
Shut your mouth!
But I’m talkin’ ’bout Bush!
We can dig it!
+1 Quaker.
Oh, Quaker, you’re so adorable when you’re playing dumb.
Oh, you’re not playing?
The Beirut barracks attack was why I said Reagan was “questionable.” It was NOT sovereign US territory, but it was a sizable US military base.
Carter let Iran not only attack, but take and keep US sovereign territory.
Clinton oversaw three or four (depending how you count the African bombings) Islamofascist attacks on sovereign US territory.
This is NOT a partisan issue, you asshat. The road to 9/11 was paved with failures by numerous presidents dating back at least to Carter. It’s beyond idiotic to boil it all down to “Bush bad!”
I understand that’s about as far as you can go without taxing your brain, but give it a stretch or two.
J.
“Then Pres Obama’s headcount begins Jan 21, 2008″ should be Jan 21, 2009
It’s beyond idiotic to boil it all down to “Bush bad!”
Mr. Tea, you lackwit, find any place in this thread where I have “boiled it all down to ‘Bush bad!’” You won’t find it because I haven’t done it.
Let’s go through this slowly.
Folks on the right (example, Frank in this thread) keep saying Mr. Bush “kept America safe” for 7+ years.
Someone counters, “By that measure other presidents kept us safe for 8 years.”
Along comes Mr. Tea to reply: Nuh-uh! Warships! Embassies!
If that’s how you choose to define “American soil,” well, that’s your choice. You can’t however, choose that as your definition and still claim that Bush succeeded for seven and half years.
Quaker, I think we can all agree that there was significant fear of another attack on American soil — i.e., the 50 states, after 9/11.
We have become complacent because it didn’t happen. Thank Pres Bush, and cleanse your soul.
SDM: Gee. Most other presidents made it a full eight years.
Jay Tea: Clinton and Carter didn’t, Sean. Carter didn’t even make it four years. Thanks for proclaiming your stupidity.
And Reagan didn’t even make it two and a half.
Of course, none of those were anywhere near the scale of 9/11.
Or involved people preparing for years within the US.
Or involved attacks within the actual US homeland (yes, the embassies are US territory, but there is a vast difference between a building within a foreign city and those within a major US city).
But in any event I didn’t say ALL other Presidents, Jay. Thanks for proclaiming your inability to understand what you read.
I think we can all agree that there was significant fear of another attack on American soil — i.e., the 50 states, after 9/11.
Take it up with Mr. Tea. He’s the one with the non-standard definition of “American soil.”
Jay Tea: If history offends you, Jesse, then tough shit.
Nope. Not offended by it.
Selective history, however,…
In 1983, Islamic Jihad bombed our embassy in Beirut
Of course, that was under Reagan less than three years into his first term, so you wouldn’t want to mention that one. Or any other atttacks under Republican administrations. (Lima, 1990. Bonn, 1991.
In any event, embasssies, despite popular belief, aren’t actually territory of the sending country. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which describes how missions to foreign countries are to be treated, etc., and does state that
But note there is no mention of the premises of the mission becoming the legal territory of the sending country.
Nobody can enter the embassy without the permission of the head of the mission. It’s host country land under absolute control of the sending country. But it is host country soil.
Jay Tea: Reagan is arguable.
No he isn’t.
Blatantly, flagrantly, idiotically false on its face.
Frank DiSalle: Good enough. Then Pres Obama’s headcount begins Jan 21, 2008.
And Pres Bush’s doesn’t start after 9/11/01, much as Jay Tea would like it to.
So (if we’re to continue this stupid game) let’s compare head counts for the last two administrations seven and a half months in….
Frank DiSalle: Quaker, I think we can all agree that there was significant fear of another attack on American soil — i.e., the 50 states, after 9/11.
We have become complacent because it didn’t happen.
Fear != danger actually exists.
Oh, Sean. If you’re going to get condescending with me, try to get the facts right before you tell me how wrong I am.
In 1983, Islamic Jihad bombed our embassy in Beirut
No, they did not.
They bombed the US Marine barracks at the Beirut airport, which was clearly and definitively Lebanese territory. It was NOT the embassy.
Hence, “arguable.”
And it is long-established international law that embassies and warships are sovereign territory of their parent nation.
And why doesn’t anyone want to talk about the 1993 World Trade Center bombing?
J.
There is an assumption here that all these attacks could have been prevented if if if … . That assumes that the USA is potentially omnipotent every single time and in every single instance. It’s just not the case. This is not a criticism nor am I being disrespectful: terrorists’ are real people with bad intentions who are more than capable of harming others and no amount of blaming will make them go away.
let’s talk about terrorism world wide , so we can make America (read “Pres Bush”) responsible for every terrorist attack in 8 years.
What’ve you got against America and Pres Bush? Is this how far you wingnuts have fallen?
And why doesn’t anyone want to talk about the 1993 World Trade Center bombing?
Because Frankenfurter would rather talk about Oklahoma City?
Mr. Tea, if you’re going to give lectures about fact-checking, you might want to set a better example.
I’m starting to think you get things wrong on purpose. No one could be this error-prone by accident.
Oh, Sean. If you’re going to get condescending with me, try to get the facts right before you tell me how wrong I am.
Haw!
BTW, did you lefties help an old lady cross the street to commemorate 9/11?
let’s talk about terrorism world wide , so we can make America (read “Pres Bush”) responsible for every terrorist attack in 8 years.
What’ve you got against America and Pres Bush? Is this how far you wingnuts have fallen?
derF: Please tell me what you are talking about, if it’s worth the effort.
Oh, Jay. If you’re going to get condescending with me, try to get the facts right before you tell me how wrong I am.
No, they did not.
Yes, they did.
And check out Photo C14159-28A from the official Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. Caption: The Reagans honor the victims of the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. 4/23/83
(In case the image tag doesn’t work, photo is here.)
To be clear, Jay Tea:
# U.S. Embassy Bombing – 18 Apr. 1983
# Marine Barracks Bombing – 23 Oct. 1983
Two completely separate incidents.
You might like to spend 17 seconds checking your facts some times (literally, that’s all it took) before you start claiming others don’t have their’s right.
Jay Tea: <i.And it is long-established international law that embassies and warships are sovereign territory of their parent nation.
Cite, please. I know you don’t like to have to back up your “facts”, but I’ve given you one supporting the fact I presented. Surely you could at least attempt to do the same for your claim.
Frank DiSalle: BTW, did you lefties help an old lady cross the street to commemorate 9/11?
No, Frank. I figured you were capable enough of crossing on your own.
And did you commemorate it by nursing your anger and hurt, or did you just express your anger with impotent threats, ya “Keyboard Commando” hypocrite wimp?
Yuk, yuk, Martin.. Your a**holery knows no bounds…
So I guess you didn’t even think about 9/11?
What do you care?
You didn’t get hurt.
Martin:
Assume the position.
Gotta hand it to Reagan though, he did start the Republican trend of attacking places not involved with terror attacks.
We lose a barracks in Beirut, he attacks Grenada.
Did you kill some Islamofascists on 9/11, DiSalle?
I did make a face at a brown – skinned guy with a towel around his head, but it turned out it was my Mexican neighbor stepping out of the shower into the hall to get his paper.
Boy, was my face red ! Well, you know, pinkish…
Sean, this isn’t the first time Mr. Tea has pulled a “long-established international law” right outta his bazoo. Last time, I think it had something to do with proportional response.
It’s amazing how far we have progressed as a nation. From a country that took out 2 islamic nations in retaliation for an attack on American soil to a nation whose president is the son of a muslim, who went to a madarassa as a youngster and who bowed deferentially to islamic royalty. We’re just getting better all the time.
A O : The Muslims are currently winning what Will and Ariel Durant called the “Revolution of Reproduction” , whereby minorities become majorities. But not for long:
Recall this joke :
There are are three folks on a bench; a Muslim, a native American, and a cowboy.
The native American says, “Once we were many; now, we are few.”
The Muslim says, “Once we were few; now, we are many.”
The cowboy says, “That’s ‘cuz we ain’t played Cowboys and Muslims yet.”
whereby minorities become majorities
And as we all know this is the worst thing that can possibly happen. Sieg heil.
Hey Frank,
Remind me again of the drawbacks of cowboy diplomacy. It wasn’t popular with the euroweenie set but then again America is the antithesis of Europe so that’s all good.
LOL, you’ll stir up the politically correct. I can almost hear the usual suspects with the usual refrain…RACIST
“whereby minorities become majorities”
I am curious, what is the perceived benefit of changing demographics just for the sake of changing demographics.
Frank DiSalle: Yuk, yuk, Martin.. Your a**holery knows no bounds…
Nor your cowardice.
Or hypocrisy.
Quaker in a B: Sean, this isn’t the first time Mr. Tea has pulled a “long-established international law” right outta his bazoo. Last time, I think it had something to do with proportional response.
And still waiting for a reply from Jay Tea.
He’s very like Frank in that regard. Challenge him to his face to actually back up what he’s saying and he can’t run away fast enough.
Frank DiSalle: There are are three folks on a bench; a Muslim, a native American, and a cowboy.
The native American says, “Once we were many; now, we are few.”
The Muslim says, “Once we were few; now, we are many.”
The cowboy says, “That’s ‘cuz we ain’t played Cowboys and Muslims yet.”
Frank DiSalle, ladies and gents. Once again showing his fervent belief that genocide is a proper foreign policy. At least he’s consistent.
wingunt “that all men are created equal” belief in American principles, ladies and gents.
Oliver, perhaps you should direct your hyperbole at Will and Ariel Durant …
Martin, there are more Indians in America , than there were when Columbus landed. If that’s genocide, we suck at it. But it wasn’t genocide. It was more like a massive outpouring of Europeans into the Americas in less than 400 years — I’m sure to the Indians it seemed frightening, sudden, and awesome (in its original meaning).
Did we at anytime deliberately plan on killing all the Indians in the Americas ? No, never .
I repeat – N – E – V – E – R .
Frank DiSalle: Martin, there are more Indians in America , than there were when Columbus landed.
Did we at anytime deliberately plan on killing all the Indians in the Americas ? No, never .
I repeat – N – E – V – E – R .
I’ll say I’m right because I actually look these things up. Frank is sure he’s proven himself right because he R – E – P – E – A – T – S things.
Oliver, perhaps you should direct your hyperbole at Will and Ariel Durant …
I’m directing your own words at you about crying for the so-called purity of America.
Pretending that there wasn’t a policy of ethnic cleansing vs American Indians is the kind of BS you traffic in constantly Frank.
Just open a history book, watch a documentary, something, for once.
OW: Just open a history book, watch a documentary, something, for once.
As if that’d have any effect on Frank.
Here’s a par4agraph from the conclusion of the source you cited , Martin:
[emphasis added]
Oliver, I went to school before the “America sucks” revisionists took over. And before PBS attempted to rewrite American history.
I’m directing your own words at you about crying for the so-called purity of America.
I said no such thing, at any time, in any place. You are a bald-faced liar.
And before PBS attempted to rewrite American history.
Show your work. Make some sort of attempt to back up your accusations. You’re accusing PBS of rewriting history, explain how. They used historical documents, data, pictures, and footage in the program. They have a pretty good track record and know they’ll be called out if they try to push liberal or conservative bullshit.
You went to school in an era where the mythology told about wonderful Columbus crossing the ocean blue and nary a mention about the genocide and slavery that was also a part of this legacy.
You went to school in an era where they glossed over the disconnect required by our founders – and this does not deny their genius or the greatness of what they did – to write a declaration of independence declaring all men to be equal while owning slaves and relegating women and non-landowners to subservience.
I went to school in an era where they told us what actually happened and taught us to fucking learn by always adding new information to what we know.
RADICAL IDEA.
History is about the whole picture, why is your mind so freaking closed?
To further illustrate my point: I happen to believe FDR was our greatest president (though its close with Lincoln). I also believe that FDR was batshit fucking wrong to intern Japanese Americans (just like Lincoln was wrong to silence the press). I am able to keep both of these things in my head at the same time. Why? BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT HAPPENED. Not the fairytale version.
I said no such thing, at any time, in any place.
You’ve repeatedly said on this site that there was something wrong with increased hispanic and muslim populations, especially in the US.
Frank DiSalle: “The United States did not wage biological warfare against the Indians;”
You had said “Did we at anytime deliberately plan on killing all the Indians in the Americas ? No, never.” Biological attack is only one way to eradicate a people and, as shown in the links already provided, was planned or at least contemplated by some military leaders.
But let’s see what the politcal leaders and US government advocated and did.
May 31, 1779. Shortly after the start of America.
“Total Destruction“
1873, nearly 100 years later.
Destroy the culture
1876. Only good Indian is a dead Indian
See also actions of the US military such as Sand Creek, Wounded Knee, et al. Official policies for mass slaughter of the buffalo, scalp bounties offered by Governors, the Indian Termination Policy (which brings us up to the 1980,s by the way) and numerous other official gov’t actions and policies designed to eliminate native tribes or their cultures.
And what of your other claim, Frank. That “there are more Indians in America , than there were when Columbus landed.” I notice you’re no longer trying to defend that one. Ready to admit you had it wrong?
Ready to admit you had it wrong?
If I was wrong about the actual number of Indians , pre- and post – Columbus, I stand by my other statement: There was not, ever, a national policy to exterminate the Indians.
Oliver , this is your blog. If you can’t find where I said “that there was something wrong with increased hispanic and muslim populations, especially in the US”, why should I hunt all over proving what I already know to be true: that there never was a national policy to exterminate the Indian. Just because certain leftist historiographers bandy the term “holocaust” about, doesn’t make it so.
And, let me add, that whatever problems have been either generated by, or caused by, either the large influx of Hispanic and Muslim immigrants, or the unwitting support of do gooders who think that accelerating their absorption into our culture is a mistake, that still doesn’t indicate that I believe Muslims or Hispanics are inferior human beings.
I think perhaps it is you that harbor insecurities about your racial identity which you then project onto every one around you, but I wouldn’t assert that as a fact, like you call anyone a racist, whenever it suits you.
This has all grown tiresome,
As near as I can tell, the so – called evidence that the protesters are racist is that when Pres Bush had deficits , these same people were not protesting. So the only detectable difference that YOU (meaning you lefties) can discern between Pres Obama and Pres Bush is that Pres Bush is white and Pres Obama is not, therefore, the protesters must be racists who are protesting ONLY because Pres Obama is black.
I suspect that there is some faulty logic there, which I will leave for others to unravel, as I ask this question: If that formula above is correct, then can there be any protesting of Pres Obama’s policies that could be considered non – racist: After all, Pres Bush will always be white, and Pres Obama will always be non – white?
I am left wondering: Did each person who voted for Pres Obama vote for him because he was either notBush or black, or because he was both notBush and black?
You know the sad fact of life is people get run over by progress, it was sad when the Buggy whip factories went out of business because of the auto.
But I don’t get that worked up about the issue, if you do, then you can never move on as a nation, In California everyone supported the Indians until they tried to buy Grey Davis back his Governorship (stopping the recall, and winning the vote in the recall). After they entered the Democrat pay to play machine they forgot who supported them. the have gotten now support since then on their initiatives.
No, here in California their nations are wealthy. So who cares, as Obama would say, “Spoils to the victor”, or at least, “I won, so I am going to trump you on that”.
Frank DiSalle: If I was wrong about the actual number of Indians , pre- and post – Columbus,
If? How many cites do you need to actually admit you were wrong, Frank? Give me a number.
“I went to school in an era where they told us what actually happened and taught us to fucking learn by always adding new information to what we know.”
LOL,
Howard Zinn doesn’t actually give you a good grounding in history. We were always taught about the reality of what happened to the indians in this country. There were mixed feelings in this nation about the right way to deal with indians. In the end they were in the way of expansion and systamatically defeated. They became wards of the Federal government and received citizenship in the 20’s without having to give up seperate soveriegnty. They became in essence the first super citizens for whom certain Constitutional rules do not apply.
It is not surprising that you favor FDR. He was instrumental in creating the welfare state and tried to build political coalitions using the redistribution of wealth. He had little respect for the Constitution, you have much in common.
They became in essence the first super citizens for whom certain Constitutional rules do not apply.
My, aren’t they lucky!
Howard Zinn doesn’t actually give you a good grounding in history.
Because…? Any historian would be embarrassed for you for not supporting your statement with an iota of documentation.
In the end they were in the way of expansion and systamatically defeated. They became wards of the Federal government and received citizenship in the 20’s without having to give up seperate soveriegnty. They became in essence the first super citizens for whom certain Constitutional rules do not apply.
Re-read those three sentences in their original order. Let them sink in. That’s how Amused Observer thinks. Really.
One can’t help but wonder if Amused Observer can explain Indian sovereignty any better than this this fine adherent of the [U.S.] Constitution. (That guy was, technically, President of the United States. Really. No kidding.)
LOL Indeed,
That’s not what I think, that’s what happened. Really.
The first Amnericans grouped by ethnic identiy whose rights exceed the rights of other Americans in opposition to the 14th Amendment.
The first Amnericans grouped by ethnic identiy whose rights exceed the rights of other Americans in opposition to the 14th Amendment.
Right. And if you believe that, I have some smallpox infested blankets to sell you.
LOL Indeed,
Again belief has nothing to do with it. Did the people whose work you peered over and copied to get through school resent you? You might have learned more if you had done your own work.
You righties believe some pretty sick, incorrect crap.
Hey SDM, did JayT every concede/recognize the 83 embassy attack? Looks like he used the Native American discussion as a distraction and ran for cover. Why was I expecting anything different?
btw, was the nonsensical rant about ‘no injuns were harmed in the making of this movie’ Frank’s way of helping his bud out of a jam?..good one Frank :-0
wiz: Hey SDM, did JayT every concede/recognize the 83 embassy attack?
Not that I saw.
In fact, haven’t seen Mr. Tea anywhere around here since then.