- Joined
- Oct 12, 2009
- Messages
- 6,762
- Reaction score
- 1,619
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Private
It's difficult to stress the level of idiocy of the original post.
:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl
That is really funny. And so damn true.
It's difficult to stress the level of idiocy of the original post.
It appears to me that the OP assumes there are too many historians who are stupid and will be duped into writing history books based on single biased sources. If our historians are that stupid, it wouldn't matter how many sources they had, since they'd be too incompetent to interpret anything.The thing that is most concerning (though not altogether surprising) is the idea that history is to remove the perceptions of the main actors altogether simply because they are perceived as biased. Of course they are biased: historians will be analyzing their actions and thoughts! Because George Bush is unpopular, he and his administration should not be allowed to give out their story? That would produce some of the weakest historical scholarship imaginable.
It's difficult to stress the level of idiocy of the original post.
It appears to me that the OP assumes there are too many historians who are stupid and will be duped into writing history books based on single biased sources. If our historians are that stupid, it wouldn't matter how many sources they had, since they'd be too incompetent to interpret anything.
I can't open the link.Bush attempting to rewrite history of "disastrous presidency" - RT
Unlike Hitler, Bush gets to rewrite the history of his leadership, to hide the bad parts and enhance/create the good parts. Astonishing.
Not sure if it's incompetence, or rather a concious method of educating generations in a very biased way. We see this with historical context in some history books where a point of view is conveyed with an interpretation that is designed to provide the student with a predetermined conclusion. Many argue that this bias is unconscious but I think it's just as many times premeditated. It's not just a political or ideological bias either - some are social biases, some are cultural, some are political and some are religious - it really ranges the entire spectrum.
Howard Zinn's Biased History
One thing for sure until a week ago we were relatively safe from terrorists under Bush.
Oh My God! Did he just say the wacko Army Major wouldn't have gone all Islamo Terrorist if Bush were still President? No I'm saying that under Bush none did that is just a fact.
Does it make him better or smarter than Obama? Hell no but the little mentally challenged downs syndrome 6 year boy old next door is. He just lacks Obama's education and line of Shiite and ability to lie convincingly. I will say that the way Obama is trying to kiss Muslim butt is inviting trouble. Then one day we can all set around and talk about how Obama's trying to rewrite to show he was not the stupid idiot amateur he's been up 'til now. But until it happens I'll just wait and see what does happen next on amateur hour.
Your source doesn't give any reason to believe their opinion that any "rewriting" will occur is based on anything real.
Mere opinion, and not even authoritative opinion.
There is another way of looking at this, which is that he gets the opportunity to tell his side of the story, with all of the constraints and influences he had to consider. The fact that most of what gets told about his presidency is from the counter-propaganda perspective of those who oppose him ideologically and who try to discredit all that he did demands a biography from Bush's perspective. There are good reasons for the things he did that he is excoriated for.
This pre-emptive attack to discredit his history is just prepping the ideological battlefield.
History will be much kinder to GWB than the current liberal left.
This is why the liberal left is so up in arms about this -- they cringe at the thought of history seeing them as nothing more than the partisan detractors that they are.
Not sure how that has anything to do with what I said.Dude, when will you realize that all politicians are crooks?
Not sure how that has anything to do with what I said.
My statement - a statement you have not actually addressed - made no such declarationYou are still in the whole left-right spin circle, saying one side is better than the other.
Oral history of Bush presidency planned - White House- msnbc.com
Really? Does that source help?
I suppose pathetic propaganda networks like Fox will just leave this story be in favour of showing a bunch of pro Republican party crap.
Oral history of Bush presidency planned - White House- msnbc.com
Really? Does that source help?
I suppose pathetic propaganda networks like Fox will just leave this story be in favour of showing a bunch of pro Republican party crap.
It's amazing how powerful the liberal movements propaganda machine worked for eight years. I rarely see anything written that has anything to actually do with Bush. WOW!! It is amazing how even those that are not liberal spout off the same propaganda.
I watch it happen in real time when I was forced to see what was driving a fellow where I worked crazy just after Bush got elected. Everyday he would rant, did you listen to air America or NPR today? After 2 months I finally did and I was amazed to here them promoting basic everyday occurrences in politics as things only done by Bush and his cronies. I calmed him down by showing him that they where lying to him, and that all politics works that way. But then came haliburton and he was gone beyond reasoning with any more.
It was a shocking experience to watch radio shows and TV shows spreading lies and hatred to such a degree just because of the close election with Gore. The lies and hatred were so strong that I watched republicans start to repeat the same propaganda. Or as I would like to say, "Their sniffing to many liberal cool-aid farts".
Bush did not care what People thought of him and thus never defended himself, that part made me very angry. But I guess he realized as I do that a mind full of hate and lies can not be reasoned with. He did give speeches of what he was up to, but they only got 5 minutes of discussion on CNN and 6 minutes on Fox. Not like the days worth when Obama speaks.
I hope he defends himself this time and brings to light all the history that was buried by Fox and CNN and others about the war in Iraq. I know they will make movies someday about this buried history, but for now it would be nice to debate this history in forums like this.
Bush was not the greatest of Presidents, but he was no where near the President promoted by the criminally insane on the left.
This IMHO as an independent thinker.
I can agree with most of this.
Do you remember how many books came out during Bush's presidency that either talked about his assassination as it might happen, or alluded to the assassination of the U.S. President? Like 3 or 4. Outrage? Only from some people on the right. How many do you think will come out during Obama's presidency? Not many. And if they do, can you IMAGINE the ****storm?
I can't open the link.
Anyone else see the humor in a Western European using a Russian site to talk trash about an American President?
No, but I do see the humor of an idiot asking us to constantly see "the truth" when he has no conception of what truth is.