Here’s another: You’re a cowardly little bitch who follows me around like an abused puppy.

So please un-bunch your panties.

This statement is not historically accurate, and if you educated your history students with this it was irresponsible.

Clinton was indeed a centrist, but he was most definitely a Democrat. And America does better with Democrats in charge.

If you watched the Frontline program on derivatives and the woman in charge of the CFTC at the time warning of the dangers of an unregulated derivatives market in the late 1990′s when Clinton was president and riding the wave of the overly-valued stock market, you couldn’t make that claim without being blindly partisan.

Frontline: The Warning–One Lone Regulator Warned About Derivatives’ Dangers

I linked to a liberal website that has the video and some psot-program interviews, but there is no denying that Clinton joined hands with Greenspan, Summers, Geithner and Robert Rubin to shut this woman down and Clinton signed legislation to allow for the deregulation of the derivatives market that led to the market collapse. And now Geithner and Summers are hand in hand with Barack Obama, and this woman is saying without a doubt it will happen again.

Democrats, Jaim. No denying it. You can only ignore it.

Your statement is not historically accurate. It is only extremely biased cherry-picking.

FDR gave everything away at Yalta, Truman lost China, Commies were all over the State Dept under Ike, Earl Warren should have been impeached, MLK was a secret commie, we would have won in Vietnam if it wasn’t for dirty fucking hippies stabbing the troops in the back, Carter and Clinton were idiots, Reagan was a fucking genius, and on and on and on.

It’s a whole ‘nother world they live in, where shit happened that didn’t, and shit didn’t happen that did.

You however claimed that a US attack on the Soviets at the end of WWII would have been an easy victory.

Because your ignorance of all things, especially American history, is staggering.

People don’t make fun of you here because you represent conservatism, we make fun of you because you’re stupid. (Not that the two things don’t often go hand in hand.)

Congrats … You are both possessed of such monumental suckitude , that I can’t even bother debating you.

You are provocative with no point. You say things with no foundation, while insulting me for being wrong, and your “left wing Democrat” version of history could have been written by Turtledove.

Ah yes, running away with your tail between your legs. How conservative of you.

Stoner punk Zython says at 2:28 AM to someone who checks out at midnight.

How liberal of him.

Ah yes, running away with your tail between your legs. How conservative of you.

Oh, but Bush liberated Iraq. Right-o.

We had a thoroughly united country, Democrats, Republicans, even socialists and communists, once the Soviet Union joined the battle.

The Soviet Union was fighting the Nazis before we were.

All of Eastern Europe , half of Germany, and one quarter of Berlin were all lost because of FDR.

What a fat load of nonsense. The Soviets already held all the territory that FDR ‘lost’ at Yalta. He’d have had to fight them for it.

Truman had victory handed to him by Gen MacArthur, but turned it down , because he feared the Communist Chinese.

Oh good grief. MacArthur wanted to bomb the Chinese, at the time still a Russian ally. He went over the head of his commander-in-chief.

“Why did we give all that to the Soviet Union?”

Because they’re the ones who took over a million casualties to take Berlin. This was a conscious choice on the part of Eisenhower who was willing to spare American lives in order to give the Soviets the “photo ops” of a captured Reichstag.

“hey were magically a superpower? What were we, chopped liver.”

America was in a strong position, but we were also tired. Our civilian armies are good in short bursts of activity but not so much as occupying forces (cf. Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan). Could we have started a war with the Soviet war machine? Sure. Would it have been a good idea? Absolutely not. Would we have won? Probably not, or at least not without nuking half of Europe which would have been an even worse loss.

” I am off this thread.”

Coward.

Try connecting those two ideas , you nitwit . Now you’re pissing me off, you’re so dopey.

and , Jaim,you teach history to children , and I have taught history to children. You get paid for it because they are Koreans , and you are conning them … Why aren’t you teaching American History in America , you jimoke ?

And a) I was not quoting McCarthy , I was paraphrasing him; and 2) His observation was valid: Why did we give all that to the Soviet Union? Just because , according to you, after getting their ass kicked for four years , they were magically a superpower? What were we, chopped liver.

I told Jaim, read a book , check out a documentary, read an old news paper , talk to your grandfather,and, yes , you ill – mannered lout , respect your elders… Maybe if you don’t your ass killed for being a jerk, you might live to be old, and then maybe people will treat you like you treated your elders.

But, Zython , you’re a young punk. If you don’t get some manners , pronto, some “old man” is going to kick your ass, when you least expect it.

No when they spew idiocy and untruth, no.

“he Soviet Union, they were weak, and starving, their infrastructure nearly wiped out.”

As opposed to how robust they were getting trounced repeatedly in 1942-1943?

My god, you know nothing about history. The Soviet Army was at its peak in troop strength when they took Berlin. They were fully mobilized, tank production was insanely high (just ask the Germans), and they were a tidal wave rolling over Germany.

One could take a hypothetical approach and consider a war between a nuclear-armed US and a Soviet Army that would have rolled across western Germany and France within weeks, but you’d have to consider that Soviet troops weren’t holed up in Moscow, they were all over the place. The tactical use of nukes (and I really doubt we had more than a handful after dropping two on Japan) would entail blowing up the very European cities we were supposed to have saved such as Berlin, Paris, etc.

So no, you’re wrong as usual. And you have no idea what you’re talking about.

And quoting Joseph McCarthy to make a point? Really?

There’s a reason I’ve been paid to teach history and you haven’t.

Let me rephrase that…

Hmm…

Ah! “You have a tendency to say idiotic things.”

Here’s how you can make it clearer, you dope … If Social Security had been privatized in 2006 , there would have been a massive infusion of cash into the stock market, which would have stanched the flow of cash out of the stock market. See how simple it is when you know how?</I.

You know nothing about my attitude toward the black community

Except for, you know, calling them “feral”.

Here’s how you can make it clearer, you dope … If Social Security had been privatized in 2006 , there would have been a massive infusion of cash into the stock market, which would have stanched the flow of cash out of the stock market. See how simple it is when you know how?

You know nothing about my attitude toward the black community , because you are a simpleton. I have done more for the black community, than you will do between now and the end of the world .

Now, beanbrain, you made a stupid statement, and you are trying to back pedal away from it.

You asked the question, “You really think that Obama’s insane because he has the nerve to think that a black man can run a country?”

I said no such thing. If you found some way to say I did, let’s see it… If you can’t back it up, then shut up and back off. I don’t consider you mature enough to apologize.

No, you idiot, other way around. The crash of the stock market would have bankrupted Social Security. How can I make this any clearer?

I have a better idea , Zython: You brought it up ; you document it. It was your suggestion – back it up .

Interesting idea. Well, your attitude towards the black community in the past has, shall we say, not so rosy. In addition you seem to be intent on avoiding explaining your view on this subject, which suggests that you realize that being forthright with your reasoning will discredit you.