"More Extreme Than Bush" ... A GOP Congress Filled with Tea Party Candidates

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2010 9:18 PM GMT
    With polls and prognosticators predicting a massive Republican rout -- and the likely election of uncompromising, out-of-the-mainstream conservatives -- in the fall, the Obama administration has begun raising dire alarms in its pitch to voters. Remember the Bush administration, the argument goes. It could be worse.

    "I saw that [Alaska GOP Senate candidate] Joe Miller said that he would abolish Social Security if he had the chance and he is not alone," said chief adviser David Axelrod. "This is akin to what [Nevada GOP Senate candidate] Sharron Angle has said in Nevada and also a number of these other Republicans. So, this could go one step beyond the policies of the Bush administration to something more extreme than we have seen."

    In an interview from his West Wing office late last week, Axelrod's criticism of the president's Republican critics were some of the most sweeping to date. The senior adviser called the GOP strategy for scuffling Obama, "insidious" if not "clever." Republican leadership, he ventured, has "put emphasis on throttling things down... hoping that the mess that they created... would be so difficult to clean up that they could then blame us for their problems."

    "I think realistically what you have is a Republican Party that is now thoroughly focused on one thing and they have been frankly from the beginning: which is to try and regain power," he said. "And their strategy is to lock everything down and not let anything happen."

    The remarks suggest a White House that is frustrated at the hand it's been dealt, as well as increasingly concerned about the state of the electorate. Axelrod declined to place a marker on how November will play out. But he did note that history is not on the side of the president he serves.

    By Monday, that history's repetition was crystallizing. Stu Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report, released new predictions, putting the number of Republican gains in the House at 37 to 42 seats. Forty-five to 55 seats, he added, are "quite possible." A poll released by ABC News and the Washington Post the night before, meanwhile, revealed that for the first time in more the four years, the GOP is running even with Democrats in terms of the confidence it earns from registered voters. Faced with the possibility of a major, historic sweep on Election Day, however, the Democratic base isn't showing signs of turning out in November.

    "In a sense, we are a victim of our own success, of the expectations that the president aroused, and the fact that we have gotten so much done," Axelrod said, in attempting to explain the enthusiasm gap between Republican and Democratic voters. "Everyone who has a particular passion says, 'Well if you got that done why couldn't you get this done? If you got health care done why couldn't you get energy reform done? If you got financial reform why couldn't you get something else done?' The successes we've had have been a double-edged sword. I hope that at the end of the day, however, people will realize that this has been a period of enormous progress. I'm not begrudging people's desire to get more done. There is a lot of pent-up energy and aspirations and all these things are important. But objectively this has been an enormously productive time and everyone who helped elect the president should feel gratified at what's been accomplished because it wouldn't have happened but for their efforts."

    By: Sam Stein for the Huffington Post (09.07.10)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2010 10:06 PM GMT
    Everything that made Bush such a horrible president, besides the war (which is neither more of a conservative or liberal thing) was because he went right along with leftwing democratic policies on all sort of issues, notably those that led to the housing crisis.

    That's why it's so hilarious when democrats criticize Bush.

    The claim that Bush was anywhere near "extreme" right is outrageous.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Sep 07, 2010 10:56 PM GMT
    Nah .... he was a Liberal Bleeding Heart icon_rolleyes.gif

    He mighta been alotta things but where ever you put him he'll always fall high on the list of major F**kups

    This seems to be anniversary season
    and there are a few anniversaries that GW will always have us remember

    <object style=">

    and let's not forget his crowning glory

    <object width=">
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2010 5:18 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidEverything that made Bush such a horrible president, besides the war (which is neither more of a conservative or liberal thing) was because he went right along with leftwing democratic policies on all sort of issues, notably those that led to the housing crisis.

    That's why it's so hilarious when democrats criticize Bush.

    The claim that Bush was anywhere near "extreme" right is outrageous.



    "went along with left-wing policies"?
    Forced on him by the 2001-2007 Republican Congress, no doubt?

    Like the pure Reaganomics tax cuts packages passed by the Repub Congress in 2001 and in 2003 and signed into law by Bush both times?
    That was "left-wing"?

    Your claim that the war wasn't a right-wing failure is total BS.
    But, at least you're right on about Bush.
    He was an extremely "horrible" Republican president.

    What a shame that the Republican party hasn't learned from the Bush fiasco and still wants to implement the same failed Bush policies!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2010 2:57 PM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie saidEverything that made Bush such a horrible president, besides the war (which is neither more of a conservative or liberal thing) was because he went right along with leftwing democratic policies on all sort of issues, notably those that led to the housing crisis.

    That's why it's so hilarious when democrats criticize Bush.

    The claim that Bush was anywhere near "extreme" right is outrageous.



    "went along with left-wing policies"?
    Forced on him by the 2001-2007 Republican Congress, no doubt?

    Like the pure Reaganomics tax cuts packages passed by the Repub Congress in 2001 and in 2003 and signed into law by Bush both times?
    That was "left-wing"?

    Your claim that the war wasn't a right-wing failure is total BS.
    But, at least you're right on about Bush.
    He was an extremely "horrible" Republican president.

    What a shame that the Republican party hasn't learned from the Bush fiasco and still wants to implement the same failed Bush policies!


    I do not consider the tax cuts one of the things that made Bush a horrible president, so obviously it was not cited. In the case of waging wars, democrats have been far more notorious as war mongerers in the past. It is just recently that republicans are viewed as more pro-war when in fact most of the useless wars in the past have been instigated by democratic presidents.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2010 3:14 PM GMT
    I'd be curious to see lists of those instigated wars, Mock.

    -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2010 3:57 PM GMT
    meninlove said I'd be curious to see lists of those instigated wars, Mock.

    -Doug


    For starters, ever heard of veitnam?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2010 4:06 PM GMT
    From what I've read, not a war instigated by the US. It was already in progress and the US decided to start advising in 1950...after Truman's go'vt lost to Eisenhower (Republican) things began escalating, then continued to escalate under Kennedy.

    Eisenhower was, however, in my view, one of the best of Republican presidents as he was a moderate and did his best to curb cold-war escalations.

    -Doug

    Only one?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2010 4:37 PM GMT
    meninlove said From what I've read, not a war instigated by the US. It was already in progress and the US decided to start advising in 1950...after Truman's go'vt lost to Eisenhower (Republican) things began escalating, then continued to escalate under Kennedy.

    Eisenhower was, however, in my view, one of the best of Republican presidents as he was a moderate and did his best to curb cold-war escalations.

    -Doug

    Only one?



    Kennedy escalated our involvement, Johnson stepped things up even more. Clinton got involved in Yugoslavia. Then of course, you have WWII where roosevelt declared war on germany (they hadn't yet declared war on the US). And didn't woodrow wilson declare war on germany for WWI? Then there was the Korean war started by Truman.





  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2010 4:52 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    meninlove said From what I've read, not a war instigated by the US. It was already in progress and the US decided to start advising in 1950...after Truman's go'vt lost to Eisenhower (Republican) things began escalating, then continued to escalate under Kennedy.

    Eisenhower was, however, in my view, one of the best of Republican presidents as he was a moderate and did his best to curb cold-war escalations.

    -Doug

    Only one?



    Kennedy escalated our involvement, Johnson stepped things up even more. Clinton got involved in Yugoslavia. Then of course, you have WWII where roosevelt declared war on germany (they hadn't yet declared war on the US). And didn't woodrow wilson declare war on germany for WWI? Then there was the Korean war started by Truman.


    So you would have preferred we not involve ourselves in WWII? Should we have let Hitler's march across Europe occur unimpeded? Same for WWI?

    There is also a quality to the wars in question. I don't think you'll find many people (maybe Pat Buchanan) who would argue that the US didn't have a moral obligation to involve ourselves in the first two worlds wars. Yugoslavia is a question mark for me. There was a humanitarian need, but it's not clear that our involvement helped.

    And, if you're going to bring up Yugoslavia, then we have to get into all the "wars" that Reagan involved us in from Afghanistan to Lebanon and Grenada to the first Gulf War to the Iran-Contra Affair. Seen through that lens, it seems that the Republicans have been the warmongers, but they just don't bother to declare war.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2010 6:30 PM GMT
    Well duh, check it out



    Bitch is psychotic.
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Sep 08, 2010 6:33 PM GMT
    I caught sight of this forum and I just ate lunch.. now I feel like I'm going to absolutely throw up... which is mild compared to republicans back in control of congress.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2010 7:57 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidEverything that made Bush such a horrible president, besides the war (which is neither more of a conservative or liberal thing) was because he went right along with leftwing democratic policies on all sort of issues, notably those that led to the housing crisis.

    That's why it's so hilarious when democrats criticize Bush.

    The claim that Bush was anywhere near "extreme" right is outrageous.


    While Bush was a far right winger when it comes to social issues, he was really liberal on fiscal issues. For starters all the spending in the 8 years he was in office. Second was that bailout he signed right before he left office. In fact when I look back on it, putting the tax cuts aside, Clinton was almost more conservative than Bush when it came to fiscal issues.

    As far as the Tea Party Candidates go, I'm very excited to have candidates who believe in less taxes and less government, something we have not had in this country in a very long time. Right now it looks like the Republicans are taking the House this fall with as many as 60+ Seats around the country, their taking 30+ Governorships and the Senate is finally reachable where the GOP needs 10 seats for a majority. Heres the latest pickup numbers. They lead in these states:

    North Dakota, Delaware, Indiana, Arkansas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Wisconsin, Washington and California. They are within striking distance in West Virginia and Connecticut.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2010 8:00 PM GMT
    CHRISMA said
    mocktwinkie saidEverything that made Bush such a horrible president, besides the war (which is neither more of a conservative or liberal thing) was because he went right along with leftwing democratic policies on all sort of issues, notably those that led to the housing crisis.

    That's why it's so hilarious when democrats criticize Bush.

    The claim that Bush was anywhere near "extreme" right is outrageous.


    While Bush was a far right winger when it comes to social issues, he was really liberal on fiscal issues. For starters all the spending in the 8 years he was in office. Second was that bailout he signed right before he left office. In fact when I look back on it, putting the tax cuts aside, Clinton was almost more conservative than Bush when it came to fiscal issues.

    As far as the Tea Party Candidates go, I'm very excited to have candidates who believe in less taxes and less government, something we have not had in this country in a very long time. Right now it looks like the Republicans are taking the House this fall with as many as 60+ Seats around the country, their taking 30+ Governorships and the Senate is finally reachable where the GOP needs 10 seats for a majority. Heres the latest pickup numbers. They lead in these states:

    North Dakota, Delaware, Indiana, Arkansas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Wisconsin, Washington and California. They are within striking distance in West Virginia and Connecticut.


    As a bonus almost all of them believe we should all be ruled under biblical law!

    Its sharia law...only you know...without the tan.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2010 8:44 PM GMT
    Interesting that there are members here who are cheering clearly psychotic Republican candidates. Candidates that are strongly anti-gay rights. Now why would that be?

    Why would gay men want to see gay-hostile candidates elected? Because they promise less taxes and less government? That's not the Republican Party history. They cut taxes on millionaires only, and left the middle class twisting in the wind. And actually expanded the government. It's President Obama who in fact enacted tax reductions for the middle class.

    And Obama has spent most of the last 2 years trying to repair the economic damage done during the Bush years. Ironic (and typically unscrupulous) that Republicans have done a good job of pinning the continuing economic troubles on him, that they caused in the first place.

    But back to my question: why would gay men vote against their own interests? Could they be so altruistic that they would sacrifice themselves for what they claim is the good of the nation? REALLY? A nation that is supposed to be for everyone, where the national interest is the expression of the combined interest of all citizens?

    I haven't heard of any straights sacrificing their own interests to benefit gays. Why should gays be the sacrificial lambs of corporate interests? The only demographic that is supposed to think of others, not of themselves?

    I'm pretty sure I know the true motivations of these anti-gay gays here. They fall into 2 categories: Republican plants on gay sites, which has been documented. Or monstrously selfish gay men who see money to be made, at the expense of other gays. We can be sure the last thing on their agenda is a concern for gay freedoms & rights, and for (perhaps) fellow gays.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2010 11:10 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]southbeach1500 said[/cite]
    Art_Deco saidInteresting that there are members here who are cheering clearly psychotic Republican candidates. Candidates that are strongly anti-gay rights. Now why would that be?


    Because, not all of us fear that Republicans will have us hauled off to concentration camps if they get control of Congress.

    And, just maybe, some of us prioritize the "gay issue" a bit lower than the bankrupting of the nation.


    Thats the problem, the Democrats have everyone believing that gays will be hauled off to the concentration camps if the GOP gets Congress, LOL. What a way to get votes. Their using the gay community just like they use the poor, to get votes.

    As far as gay issues go, I feel I have the same rights as everyone else. I'm not a religous person, so I really dont care about marriage. If gay marriage goes to the ballot then I would vote for it for sure, but its not a top priority. My top priorities in life are making sure my business stays profitable, my employees are well taken care of, that I can enjoy the things in life that I've worked hard for, that I stay healthy and all my friends stay healthy. I feel these priorities can be met by supporting candidates who believe in less government and less taxes.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2010 11:16 PM GMT



    Obama has spent most of the last 2 years trying to repair the economic damage done during the Bush years. Ironic (and typically unscrupulous) that Republicans have done a good job of pinning the continuing economic troubles on him, that they caused in the first place.


    For the thousandth time... the economic recession was caused by the government meddling in the housing market and forcing banks to lend to people who never would have qualified for a mortgage in the first place had government not tried to perform social engineering.

    And, for the thousandth and first time, the whole thing collapsed once the Democrats took control of Congress. The Congress controls the nation's finances and spending.


    Wasn't it the Clinton Administration that said they wanted every American to be a home owner. What happens, banks are being forced to loan money to people who cannot afford to pay it back. This caused the mortgage crisis and led to the recession. I don't just blame the Democrats for the out of control spending. Bush and the Republicans did enough to increase government spending as well, its just Obama has made it worse. We need to focus on extending all the Bush tax cuts so companies can put people back to work.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2010 11:32 PM GMT
    CHRISMA saidAnd, just maybe, some of us prioritize the "gay issue" a bit lower than the bankrupting of the nation.

    Where was your voice when the country was being bankrupted by Bush? You echo the Republican propaganda, that turns logic and history upside down.

    Having already brought the country to bankruptcy, their policies having failed totally, the Republicans turn the tables and claim that it's the Democrats who will bankrupt the country. And you actually try to sell that nonsense here?

    But claiming that the nation is teetering on the brink is the classic Republican tactic to push through proposals that would be unacceptable otherwise, and to silence the interests of minorities like us gays. Bush used it after 9/11 to pass laws that are unprecedented in US history for their intrusion on individual rights and Constitutional protections.

    And now you use a similar tactic to push gay rights to the back, to dismiss them as unimportant diversions from a purely economic focus. But why can't we have both? Why do gay rights have to be sacrificed to have a good economy, assuming the Republicans would give us prosperity (which they haven't in the past)?

    No, you want us gays to sacrifice our own welfare for corporate welfare, which is the Republican formula for economic success. And yet you don't tell us why gays must sacrifice our modest social gains, for a return to the closeted repression of the 1950s. And why we should vote for a party whose platform calls for a Constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage AND unions in every state.

    Because you CLAIM the economy MIGHT improve? For corporations, and the mega-wealthy, perhaps, but not for average Americans. You propose a deal that no gay man could possibly want.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2010 11:40 PM GMT
    CHRISMA saidWhat happens, banks are being forced to loan money to people who cannot afford to pay it back. This caused the mortgage crisis and led to the recession.

    You do quote right-wing talking points quite well. Banks are FORCED to give loans? I'd like to know how I can do that trick. Please tell me how to force a bank to give me a loan.

    I think it was more about complicated financial instruments the industry itself created that kept moving the debt around, until the inflated housing market began to retract and suddenly all the paper money was worth -- paper.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2010 11:54 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    CHRISMA saidAnd, just maybe, some of us prioritize the "gay issue" a bit lower than the bankrupting of the nation.

    Where was your voice when the country was being bankrupted by Bush? You echo the Republican propaganda, that turns logic and history upside down.

    Having already brought the country to bankruptcy, their policies having failed totally, the Republicans turn the tables and claim that it's the Democrats who will bankrupt the country. And you actually try to sell that nonsense here?

    But claiming that the nation is teetering on the brink is the classic Republican tactic to push through proposals that would be unacceptable otherwise, and to silence the interests of minorities like us gays. Bush used it after 9/11 to pass laws that are unprecedented in US history for their intrusion on individual rights and Constitutional protections.

    And now you use a similar tactic to push gay rights to the back, to dismiss them as unimportant diversions from a purely economic focus. But why can't we have both? Why do gay rights have to be sacrificed to have a good economy, assuming the Republicans would give us prosperity (which they haven't in the past)?

    No, you want us gays to sacrifice our own welfare for corporate welfare, which is the Republican formula for economic success. And yet you don't tell us why gays must sacrifice our modest social gains, for a return to the closeted repression of the 1950s. And why we should vote for a party whose platform calls for a Constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage AND unions in every state.

    Because you CLAIM the economy MIGHT improve? For corporations, and the mega-wealthy, perhaps, but not for average Americans. You propose a deal that no gay man could possibly want.


    I never said I liked Bush (with the exeception of the tax cuts). He and the GOP Congress spent like a drunken sailors. Now Obama and the Democratic Congress are doing the same thing. I'd like to know why your against Bush bankrupting the country but you dont seem to mind Obama doing it. If Obama was really fixing the Bush mess the first thing he would do is cut government spending across the board, with the exception of roads and bridges.








  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 09, 2010 12:21 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    CHRISMA saidWhat happens, banks are being forced to loan money to people who cannot afford to pay it back. This caused the mortgage crisis and led to the recession.

    You do quote right-wing talking points quite well. Banks are FORCED to give loans? I'd like to know how I can do that trick. Please tell me how to force a bank to give me a loan.

    I think it was more about complicated financial instruments the industry itself created that kept moving the debt around, until the inflated housing market began to retract and suddenly all the paper money was worth -- paper.


    You remember the Community Reinvestment Act. This law forces banks to make loans in poor communities. People were getting loans and couldn't afford to pay them back. The government has promoted bad loans not only through this law but also through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Sep 09, 2010 12:27 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    B787 saidWith polls and prognosticators predicting a massive Republican rout -- and the likely election of uncompromising, out-of-the-mainstream conservatives -- in the fall, the Obama administration has begun raising dire alarms in its pitch to voters. Remember the Bush administration, the argument goes. It could be worse.

    "I saw that [Alaska GOP Senate candidate] Joe Miller said that he would abolish Social Security if he had the chance and he is not alone," said chief adviser David Axelrod. "This is akin to what [Nevada GOP Senate candidate] Sharron Angle has said in Nevada and also a number of these other Republicans. So, this could go one step beyond the policies of the Bush administration to something more extreme than we have seen."

    In an interview from his West Wing office late last week, Axelrod's criticism of the president's Republican critics were some of the most sweeping to date. The senior adviser called the GOP strategy for scuffling Obama, "insidious" if not "clever." Republican leadership, he ventured, has "put emphasis on throttling things down... hoping that the mess that they created... would be so difficult to clean up that they could then blame us for their problems."

    "I think realistically what you have is a Republican Party that is now thoroughly focused on one thing and they have been frankly from the beginning: which is to try and regain power," he said. "And their strategy is to lock everything down and not let anything happen."

    The remarks suggest a White House that is frustrated at the hand it's been dealt, as well as increasingly concerned about the state of the electorate. Axelrod declined to place a marker on how November will play out. But he did note that history is not on the side of the president he serves.

    By Monday, that history's repetition was crystallizing. Stu Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report, released new predictions, putting the number of Republican gains in the House at 37 to 42 seats. Forty-five to 55 seats, he added, are "quite possible." A poll released by ABC News and the Washington Post the night before, meanwhile, revealed that for the first time in more the four years, the GOP is running even with Democrats in terms of the confidence it earns from registered voters. Faced with the possibility of a major, historic sweep on Election Day, however, the Democratic base isn't showing signs of turning out in November.

    "In a sense, we are a victim of our own success, of the expectations that the president aroused, and the fact that we have gotten so much done," Axelrod said, in attempting to explain the enthusiasm gap between Republican and Democratic voters. "Everyone who has a particular passion says, 'Well if you got that done why couldn't you get this done? If you got health care done why couldn't you get energy reform done? If you got financial reform why couldn't you get something else done?' The successes we've had have been a double-edged sword. I hope that at the end of the day, however, people will realize that this has been a period of enormous progress. I'm not begrudging people's desire to get more done. There is a lot of pent-up energy and aspirations and all these things are important. But objectively this has been an enormously productive time and everyone who helped elect the president should feel gratified at what's been accomplished because it wouldn't have happened but for their efforts."

    By: Sam Stein for the Huffington Post (09.07.10)




    I am noticing quite a few anti-Republican themed threads posted in the past few days.... and nobody seems to be complaining.

    However, if there were a similar number of anti-Democrat threads posted over the same period of time, the cries of "SPAM" and "BANISH HIM FROM RJ" would be nearing a hysterical pitch by now.

    Also, how is posting an entire article (or a long excerpt) without any comment from the OP considered not spam?






    The problem isn't the number of anti Democratic threads vs. the anti Republican threads.
    The problem isn't a difference in opinion.
    I have no problem with seeing anti Democratic threads, as long as they are the TRUTH.
    And, THAT'S where you consistently run into trouble.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Sep 09, 2010 12:29 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidEverything that made Bush such a horrible president, besides the war (which is neither more of a conservative or liberal thing) was because he went right along with leftwing democratic policies on all sort of issues, notably those that led to the housing crisis.

    That's why it's so hilarious when democrats criticize Bush.

    The claim that Bush was anywhere near "extreme" right is outrageous.





    Provide a list of specific examples to back up your claim.
    Otherwise, you're full of shit.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 09, 2010 2:31 AM GMT
    jprichva said
    mocktwinkie saidKennedy escalated our involvement, Johnson stepped things up even more. Clinton got involved in Yugoslavia. Then of course, you have WWII where roosevelt declared war on germany (they hadn't yet declared war on the US). And didn't woodrow wilson declare war on germany for WWI? Then there was the Korean war started by Truman.

    This is an excellent example of why home-schooling is a total failure. Literally everything you said here is factually wrong.

    Well I certainly know that Germany declared war on the US first, based on the alliance they had with Japan, which had just attacked Pearl Harbor. And Truman did not "start" the Korean "war" (correctly called a conflict in the US). It began when North Korea invaded South Korea. The United Nations then authorized military action against the DPRK, and the US headed a multi-national force. And Woodrow Wilson declared war on nobody, since a President can't do that, only Congress can declare war. But the US did declare war on Germany in WWI, after numerous sinkings of US civilian vessels in the Atlantic by German U-boats, and the interception of the Zimmermann telegram in which Germany encouraged Mexico to attack the US and reclaim its former former lands which were now US states (TX, NM, AZ).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 09, 2010 3:11 AM GMT
    jprichva said
    mocktwinkie said
    meninlove said From what I've read, not a war instigated by the US. It was already in progress and the US decided to start advising in 1950...after Truman's go'vt lost to Eisenhower (Republican) things began escalating, then continued to escalate under Kennedy.

    Eisenhower was, however, in my view, one of the best of Republican presidents as he was a moderate and did his best to curb cold-war escalations.

    -Doug

    Only one?



    Kennedy escalated our involvement, Johnson stepped things up even more. Clinton got involved in Yugoslavia. Then of course, you have WWII where roosevelt declared war on germany (they hadn't yet declared war on the US). And didn't woodrow wilson declare war on germany for WWI? Then there was the Korean war started by Truman.

    This is an excellent example of why home-schooling is a total failure. Literally everything you said here is factually wrong.


    First of all of this is factually right. FDR got us involved in WWII which helped get us out of the Depression. Most WWII/Korean War Veterans will tell you that. And Johnson did make things worse in Vietnam. Thats what sunk his presidency. I know that because my mom and her friends held anti-war signs at rallies with a line through Johnson's face.

    As far as home schooling goes I think its great. Every kid I've ever met who has been home schooled is smart, well behaved, disciplined and hard working. Kudos to the parents who have taken the time out of their busy lives to better their kids education.