For your information, sonny boy, the first semester of my school ended on friday, which means that I have nothing to do for this three day weekend, including lugging a ten pound textbook around with me. That's why I don't have the book with me. He was a wierdo. He counted and catalogued everything. He did things that we use computers for now, not because they're especially complex, but only because they're essentially boring and repetetive tasks that most people would rather not do. Spyke, I'm getting ready to concede defeat in this debate--be aware of that. You're quite knowledgeable on this subject matter, and for that, I commend you! But I will not do so until I've double checked the text, until I've quoted it verbatim for your examination. Oh no, of course not Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So you're basically saying he's vicious. Good enough for me. Burr. There's always something under the surface. When have politicians ever worked only for the people they're supposed to represent without taking something a little something for themselves? I wouldn't put the poor in charge, because, like the rich, they don't accurately represent the nation as a whole. I would rather middle class persons without a great deal of money to their name take control, or at least, I'd rather give them a chance. If there's one thing I've learned, history is full of idiots. People just get dumber the farther back you go. America was no exception, neither were the people running its banks. It seems to be like the country was just brimming with stupidity. Up until after the Civil War, we didn't even have a national currency. Several Panics and Boom and Bust cycles throughout the 19th century left droves of people homeless and propertyless--the nation rapidly went back and forth between profit and poverty. Wage earners were often compared to slaves (in spite of the differences), because they worked for next to nothing in horrific conditions with no benefits while their superiors gained immense fortunes from their labor. Does this sound like those who "knew how to handle numbers" were doing a good job with running the nation's fiscal matters? Jolly good. I agree, it's not something that can be justified. Allying with evils to defeat greater evils is wrong, and everyone does it all the time. But should we have fought and liberated the Soviet Union? Do you think we could have really taken them on? I read a figure, from A People's History of the United States, that said, if memory serves, the Russians did something like 3/4 of the allied fighting in World War 2. Although, now that I think about it, we did have a monopoly on the atomic bomb. It does open up a wealth of possibilities. edit: you forgot in your poll that Bush is not our elected president. Just thought I'd mention that...
As I recall it was Burr that was tried for treason. Washington strove to be a stoic which would probably make him unelectable today.
What does that mean? Sounds like manipulating statistics to make a stupid argument. Last time I checked the Russians didn't enter the war until Hitler launched Barbarossa in the summer of '41, they didn't fight in Italy, North Africa, the Phillipines, Guadalcanal, Midway, Iwo Jima, and they damn sure didn't liberate France. Don't believe everything you read. I'm sure Spyke is relieved you are conceding the argument. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The Soviets precipated WWII by reaching an agreement with Hitler over the partion of Poland. They took advantage of the was between Hilter, France, and England to invade Finland.
Otay Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I should know more than you, but I commend you for taking an interest in history at all. Most people have no interest in their history. You're the one that brought it up that you didn't think Jefferson was a nice person, which seemed to indicate you thought it was somehow relevant to the argument. No, what I basically said was what I said about Jefferson. These men had just fought a revolution, and were now trying to create a nation in a way they thought best, and which often times their ideas were completely at odds with the other men who they had fought alongside in same revolution. These men were neither 'vicious', nor were they 'not very nice'. They were merely men who had placed theselves at a defining point in American history who were determined to build something grand and each thought their idea was best. One believed in the idea of a strong government while the next believed in a near anarchical society. I would suggest you study the characters of these men a good deal more. These men, including Hamilton, were not career politicians. These men were lawyers, economists, planters, and soldiers. They didn't get into politics for personal gain. These were the leading figures of the revolution, and it was quite natural that it was also them that took a leading hand it creating a government. They were in the process of a republican experiment, they weren't looking for monetary gain. Most of these guys had money already. There wasn't much of a middle class in those days. Some lawyers, small merchants, some yeoman farmers, and artisans. Hamilton, rightly or wrongly, believed the wealthy knew how to make money and therefore were suited to run the national bank. He wanted to tie them to the new government because they would more likely work to insure its success since it would effect their personal money. If they were successful, it would trickle down through the economy and everyone would benefit. Actually, his idea was sound. That's what we call a 'BS' answer to an essay question. You talked on and on, but you never came close to addressing the question, "to whom would you have given the responsibility of handling the nation's fiscal matters?". But you sound like your blaming the 'boom and bust' cycles completely on those who ran the national bank. The colonies experienced 'boom and bust' while still a part of the empire, long before a national bank, and the country experienced 'boom and bust' long after the national bank in 1836 went the way of the dodo bird, up until the present, we just have mores safeguards in place today. Land speculation, speculation in the market, over-production leading to falling prices, etc., cause busts. Plenty of blame to go around with out laying it all on the bankers. And I don't know that people were 'dumber' the further back we go. Why? Well, it's not like we had them rolling off an assembly line in the late 40s. And conquering to liberate another country is pointless if you have to nuke it in the process.
I know that people do it all the time, but I just don't understand how Stalin was determined to be less of a monster than Hitler. "If Germany starts winning, then we'll help the Russians, and if Russia starts winning, then we'll have to help Germany. Let them wear each other out." - Harry Truman I think Truman was on to something. It's that Missouri common sense. Truman seemed to have it. I have it. I bet wesmorris has it. Once Western Europe had been secured, I think we should have played Germany against Russia, letting them fight until they are decimated, and then taken out the winner. I haven't read Zinn's book, but that figure seems suspect right off the bat. Is there more to the statistic, or was it worded differently? As other SciForums members have pointed out, Russia was pretty much a no-show in the Pacific Theater (where the USA picked up most of the tab for fighting), and they also didn't fight in Italy, Northern Africa, Western Europe (Normandy, France, Battle for Britain, etc.).
maybe that stat refers to battlefield casualties? im not sure if that stat accurately reflects that, but it would seem like a reasonable assumption. i am currently the book right now, although i havent made it that far yet. it is a pretty interesting read. i would recommend it to anyone.
As for my answer to the poll... I'll have to vote "Other", since for most of time I have followed politics (early 1990s until now), Charlton Heston was my president. But if I am forced to pick an actual US president, I'd have to say Calvin Coolidge. We need more presidents who believe the job of the federal government is to mind its own business.
I don't think we really knew the depth of Stalin's cruelty until after his death, but we sided with him because it was Hitler who broke the non-aggression pact. If it had been the other way around, who knows how it would have affected relationships? Maybe we would have been able to let them beat on each other for awhile. Maybe we wouldn't have ended up in Europe at all since in that scenario Hitler wouldn't have declared war on the US following Pearl Harbor. If the Soviets had defeated Germany they might have been able to take all of Europe.
I suspect that the way Zinn got the highest numbers for the Soviets was by including civilian casualties. Stalin's progroms had left the general population unable to survive the German invasion and the harsh winters. A lot of the people died of starvation.
Now that classes have changed I am in possession of three textbooks, each of about the same hefty amount. I'll have the U.S History one here tomorrow. But I can get to the other reply, and let you all know that I have neither forgotten this threat nor entirely forfeited my argument. Hitler did declare war on us, I believe, after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. I'm not sure if this was before or after he invaded Russia. Supposedly, and, ironically, Hitler was the only man that Stalin really trusted. Why, is completely beyond me, I think the two men hardly knew each other. Did they even meet, face-to-face? Had Hitler maintained some measure of sanity, and not decided to invade Russia, we could all be living in a very, very different world today. I believe the figure I mentioned, 3/4 of the fighting done by Russia (which, pegasus, if you'd be so kind to double check...I've read the book but I borrowed it, and thus, returned it as well) was the fighting against Nazi Germany. The trouble there was that there was nothing left of Germany to fight with. What the allies didn't destroy Hitler did, on purpose, to keep the allies from taking advantage of the German industrial machine too soon. Remember, up until the end of World War 2 Germany had been a significant European power for as long as it had really existed. And while Russia suffered unthinkable casualties, they could have handled more. The war turned Russia around, into the only power on Earth that could contend with the United States. They were ready to help us out with the unnecessary invasion of Japan, they had a bone to pick with the Japanese since the Japanese had kicked their asses a few decades earlier in a naval war whose name I've forgotten...but then the Americans nuked Japan, some say, as a warning to Russia. "Look at we got, assholes. Now what are you gonna do?" I think most of the Russian fighting was done in Russia. Hitler got about as far as Napoleon, a huge tract of land, from France to Moscow, but then, like Napoleon, his army was ultimately destroyed by the Russian winter.
Pollux, The Soviets only declared war on Japan after we used the A-bomb because we had agreed to share technology only if they declared war on Japan. It was pocessing the bomb that made the Soviets a contender.
Germany launched its invasion of the Soviet Union on 22 June, 1941. Hitler and Mussolini declared war on the US on 11 December,1941, 4 days after Pearl Harbor, fulfilling his guarantee to the Japanese, although not required by the Tripartite Pact, and in effect sealed his fate.
My favorite president was Reagan. For pretty much the entire decade of the 70's, my family was dirt poor. We practically lived on beans and tortillas, and if it wasn't for the dump, we probably wouldn't have had any furniture or major appliances. Our clothes came mostly from the Salvation Army. We only got new clothes at the start of the school year. We learned shoplifting at an early age because if you can't afford McDonald's, you sure as hell can't afford a bottle of Tylenol for Mom's migraines. Both of my parents worked, and my brothers each held part-time jobs. I started my part-time job at age 12. All 5 of us were working and we still couldn't make it. Apparently we made too much money to qualify for assistance, but not enough to live on. (The standards were really screwed, worse than they are now.) When Reagan got elected, we didn't pay much attention. Then something strange and wonderful happened somewhere and we started seeing more money. By 1985, we had gone from desperately trying to keep a 1953 Plymouth Rust-O-Rama from falling to pieces to seeing my brother buy the first new car ever in our family. (It was an '85 Ford Escort.) We had stopped wondering where our next meal was coming from (we had actually taken to stealing bits and pieces from picnics, etc.). I don't know how much Reagan had to do with it, but I will forever associate his presidency with the time we got the break we needed to get out of the Slums and into Suburbia. I don't care how it happened, I will always credit Reagan with putting the food on our table.
well everyone i knew or who related to during regans presidency seeemed to have lost their jobs. we lived off the government cheese and powder milk. that is what i associate reagan with. he sucked
I wonder what happened that was so different? Yeah, I know a lot of people lost their jobs. I saw one of my good friends go homeless (I didn't learn about her situation until after a year, then she and her mother went to Sacramento to live with friends). But I also saw a lot of my friends take advantage of new opportunities that opened up to them and they got out of the holes they had been plunged into. The money started coming in and they didn't waste their time with it. Reagan was the greatest.
'Carter is the most incompetant president in history of US.' a) 'Incompetent.' b) I beg to differ. Examine our current situation, you can't possibly think Carter is the worst. :bugeye:
Even Georgie isn't the worst. Anybody here remember the Teapot Dome scandal? I have a presidential question, though, and I'm sure somebody here can answer it. Lincoln is the subject. We all know he freed the slaves (or however you want to phrase it), and like all little politically correct people we praise him for it. But can anybody tell me what else he did? All we got in school was "He freed the slaves and was president during the Civil War." Whoop-de-doo. Yeah, I know I could look it up, but sometimes I prefer the angles here on exoscience. They're more from the real world.
