- Joined
- Feb 15, 2006
- Messages
- 2,081
- Reaction score
- 49
- Location
- Bodega Bay, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
BodiSatva said:Are you saying that retrospect is absolutely necessary in order to make any determination as to the relevance of the present and how it will fall into historical context?
BodiSatva said:I'll have to run that one around the department and see how many laughs it provides. Perhaps that is just a view from one who is not insightful? Perhaps if a person are insightful and they understand history well enough, they will see what is historically relevant now in scope and see how it will fit into history.
BodiSatva said:Insight is really a simple concept...here it is for you though, if it is true that you really think that discerning the true nature of a present situation cannot help in any way when deciding potential historical relevance.
BodiSatva said:I agree sixstring...being an idiot and simply saying stupid things are different. I too, find it amazing that people think that a true idiot could become President of any nation, let alone the USA.
Originally Posted by BodiSatva
Are you saying that retrospect is absolutely necessary in order to make any determination as to the relevance of the present and how it will fall into historical context?
Yes.
BodiSatva said:-Demosthenes-
Cool.
Then we disagree.
One thing that I admire is civil disagreement.
Most radical liberals that I encounter around here are shall we say, to ....:2mad: to be able to disagree. (not that you are liberal, that is just what is dominant around here)
It sounds though, as if you don't believe in insight...because if a person has insight on an issue, if they can discern the true nature of a situation, then they are able to understand it's position of relevence amongst other issues, thus understanding how it might fit into history. In essence and to a minor degreee, this is seeing the future.
It is not a science. It is just a better understanding than no understanding. Take this at a lesser level. Will a Pres. stealing a cookie fit onto the list of worst presidents or the Pres that perhaps illegally invades another country? If this is currently happening, then you can understand how it will fit into future perspective.
BodiSatva said:That is not the point about what we have been discussing. Please follow the enitre conversation.
BodiSatva said:Insight is not reading the future. We have been disucssing the relevence of insight as it pertains to PRESENT matters and how those matters will possibly fit into history. Retrospect and insight.
BodiSatva said:Nothing psychic here my friend.
BodiSatva said:I am not worrying, thank you...
The stuff you are indicating still has nothing to do with what we are talking about. I am sorry if that is not clear.
It appears as if you are trying to create a debate based on a false assumption, as your comment, "Iraq is a present matter" indicates.
Do you have a relevent point?
BodiSatva said:I'll have to run that one around the department and see how many laughs it provides. Perhaps that is just a view from one who is not insightful? Perhaps if a person are insightful and they understand history well enough, they will see what is historically relevant now in scope and see how it will fit into history.
BodiSatva said:Cool.
Then we disagree.
One thing that I admire is civil disagreement.
BodiSatva said:It sounds though, as if you don't believe in insight...because if a person has insight on an issue, if they can discern the true nature of a situation, then they are able to understand it's position of relevence amongst other issues, thus understanding how it might fit into history. In essence and to a minor degreee, this is seeing the future.
Posted by -Demosthenes-
I believe in insight, I just don't agree with your opinion that it is enough to decide how someone will be seen in history.
ngdawg said:Johnson's downfall was not his social reforms-it was southeast asia-something Eisenhower got us into, Kennedy increased our presence and Johnson saw no way out and instead, furthered our involvement thinking erroneously it would end the conflict sooner.
It's obvious your knowledge doesn't go past your nose. What are you, 16 or something? This is a history forum, not a political spew your liberal talking-points forum.dragonslayer said:In my opinion the worst presidents in history, were the current George W. Bush, George Bush Sr, Jimmy Carter, and Herbert Hoover.
George W. Bush is the first President to start a totally unprovoked war and lie like Satan to get support for the war. Bush's policies are aggression and terror based, and his financial policies are against the American People.
The attack on Pearl Harbor was about SE Asia. So it wasn't Truman.XShipRider said:Truman got us into SE Asia after succumbing to the Chinese in Korea.
Eisenhower changed the tactic, Kennedy changed it again, Johnson had his
take and Nixon got us out (albeit after trying to bomb them into submission).
Hoot said:Allowed Unocal, Enron and Halliburton to do business with terrorists.
- These guys didn't exist before Bush?
Appointed cronies with no qualifications to positions of importance to our security.
- EVERY Pres has rewarded buddies for favors after being elected - I hate it too.
Lowered the prestige of America with other nations with his "you're either with us or against us" rhetoric.
- War on terror only works if no one give 'em safe haven. You are against those who commit terrorists acts or not....oh, but the Dems think there are no terrorists and the war on terror is a lie.
Put American soldiers at risk with his "bring it on" B.S.- Clinton: Kobar Towers, U.S.S. Cole, 2 African Embasies -- hundreds died while Clinton ignored Al Qaeda and refused to act against terrorism!
Ignored the many warnings leading up to 9/11.
- Clinton was briefed/warned by Able Danger, ignored it, denied ever meeting with Able danger, sent Sandy Berger to steal & shred classified Federal diocuments that proved he lied and did nothing! Clinton ignored when Bin Laden declared war on the U.S., ignored Kobar towers, ignored the Cole, ignored 2 African Embassies......ignored U.S. security and the lives of Americans dying around the world at the hands of terrorists!
Katrina....'nuff said.
- D@MN Bush and his weather machines! :roll: Dude, everyone knew NO could flood if they ever got hit head-on. The State and Fed Govts were so corrupt for years that this was primarily THEIR fault (faulty levies, inept leadership, etc). The local authorities did not declare a Disaster until too late, they left buses parked and did nothing to try to get their own people out! They $UCKED! Finally, the Federal Govt can not snap their fingers and save people. If Clinton would have been in office during this Hurricane, guess what?! NO would have still flooded, it would have still taken a while to mobilize resources and respond, and we would al be cursing mother nature and the corroup local govt for ineptitude instead of the President now!
Largest deficit in history, spending billions on nation building, something he campaigned on not doing.
- If I am not mistaken, we were attacked and at war now. I will give it to you that he seems to be spending even more NOT due to the war, though. I do not like that.
Outing a CIA agent.
- Are we still on that CR@P. Blame was not a covert agent, but her identity was supposed to be classified as 'classified', even though many reporters have come forward to say her Husband used to introduce her at parties as his CIA WIFE. How about that paper who just announced that you can get the name of every CIA agent, public and under-cover, plus the locations of 5 Secret bases via the internet!? Why isn't more being made of THAT story instead of this BS political stunt?
Lies about Iraq, before and after.
- Does that include all the claims from the Dems? Ya know, how Clinton said we KNOW Hussein has WMD and needed to be removed? Does that include all the current evidence that he had WMD and that he majority went intio Syria and Iran? Of course not!
Sent our soldiers into war without basic armor and equipment.
- Does this take into account Kerry voting against the bill that would provide money/armor for the troops? "I voted FOR the bill before i voted against the bill...blah, blah, blah...." :roll:
Giving Pakistan nuclear technology, in violation of the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Act, yet expecting Iran to play by the same rules he just broke for Pakistan.
Hmmm, is this as bad as Clinton committing treason by selling the Chinese military the missile technology that allows them to finally reach us with their nukes?
well i would say that you are mistakenIf I am not mistaken, we were attacked and at war now.
The US is the laughing stock right now as well!He commited adultery in the White House, made the U.S. a laughing stock throughout the rest of the world
both as bad as each other, especially on this issue. Clinton was wrong with the chinese, bush is wrong with the pakistani'sHmmm, is this as bad as Clinton committing treason by selling the Chinese military the missile technology that allows them to finally reach us with their nukes?
So we WEREN'T attacked on 9/11, and we AREN'T at war now? :shock:Willoughby said:well i would say that you are mistaken
so who are you at war with?So we WEREN'T attacked on 9/11, and we AREN'T at war now?
Willoughby said:so who are you at war with?
Originally Posted by Willoughby
so who are you at war with?
Originally Posted by Willoughby
we are at war with Bin Laden/Al Qaeda
Originally Posted by Willoughby
just that man and his organisation
BodiSatva said:There you go.
Things are really fairly simple.
Like G.W. and his organization? Or will you differentiate simply because of size or "official" status.
One guy and his organization fought the French and then the Americans and beat them both...Ho Chi Minh and his VC boys and girls. :2razz:
See how easy this is?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?