20 historical and political questions (1 Viewer)

[jamny]

I don't see how people can think, in hindsight, that pulling out of Iraq when we did was a good idea. Say what you want about the mistake to invade in the first place, but we clearly left too early. And now we might have to go back. That was a good idea?

 

[Jayrod]

I don't see how people can think, in hindsight, that pulling out of Iraq when we did was a good idea. Say what you want about the mistake to invade in the first place, but we clearly left too early. And now we might have to go back. That was a good idea?

The bolded is a pretty key assumption and I disagree with.

 

[mr roboto]

I have comprised a list of 20 historical and political questions which I would like people, if they're interested, to answer. You're welcome to answer all 20, or whichever ones interest you. These are all "yes/no" questions, and they are all subjective; there are no right or wrong answers. You're free to answer them yes or no, but I would also love it if you would expand on the answers if you want to.

1. For the United States to develop into the nation we are today, was it inevitable that native Americans had to be subjugated, their lands taken away, and their culture destroyed?

Probably. It certainly expedited the development. Unfortunately.

2. Was it legal and Constitutional for the southern states to secede from the United States in 1860 and 1861?

Don't know enough.

3. Was FDR's New Deal good for the United States?

At the time yes.

4. Were the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki a justifiable act of war?

At the time yes.

5. Was the Vietnam War winnable for the United States?

At the time no.

6. Do you give President Reagan credit for helping to win the Cold War?

Sure, a bit.

7. Did George W. Bush fairly win the Presidential election of 2000?

No election is truly fair.

8. Could our government reasonably have prevented the events of September 11, 2001?

No.

9. Was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 a good decision?

At the time no.

10. Was the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq in 2009/10 a good decision?

At the time yes.

11. Was TARP and the stimulus package necessary for saving our economy?

Some kind of stimulus yes.

12. Should the middle class and wealthy pay more in taxes so that poor people have better access to health insurance?

Yes to an extent.

13. Should the middle class and wealthy pay more in taxes so that poor people have access to welfare and food stamps?

For a temporary safety net yes.

14. Is gay marriage a federal right under the 14th Amendment?

Probably.

15. Would universal background checks on gun purchases or universal gun registration violate the 2nd Amendment?

No.

16. Was Roe vs. Wade good law, in terms of it's interpretation of the Constitution?

I don't know. I don't like it but I'm not sure.

17. Are the employment and legal woes of so many African-Americans in this country, today, due mostly to lingering racism?

No. They are due to structural historic racism. Lack of inherited wealth, lack of generational education etc.

18. Should the United States continue it's close relationship with the State of Israel?

Don't know.

19. Is the mass collection of private emails and phone records, justified by collective warrants, a violation of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution?

Probably.

20. Should illegal immigrants already living in this country eventually be given legal status and a means to become citizens?

Some of them yes.

I'm not real good at yes/no answers to questions I'm not very knowledgable about, which require hindsight or gloss over the issues looking for a simple answer.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I don't see how people can think, in hindsight, that pulling out of Iraq when we did was a good idea. Say what you want about the mistake to invade in the first place, but we clearly left too early. And now we might have to go back. That was a good idea?

Because if we stayed another 10 years this post of yours is just delayed by 10 years. If we stayed another 50 years the same question would be asked. We could have pulled out at "Mission Accomplished" and would have had this same discussion 10 years ago. We could never solve the power vacuum we created, only hide with our presence. And every day we are postponing the inevitable the factions on the outside are getting more organized, getting stronger, getting more radicalized. Once we went in, the sooner we left the better even if we had to go back and clean up again. In fact by staying so long we took away "our stomach" for some options.

 

[The Commish]

I don't see how people can think, in hindsight, that pulling out of Iraq when we did was a good idea. Say what you want about the mistake to invade in the first place, but we clearly left too early. And now we might have to go back. That was a good idea?

I think it's pretty naive to believe there is a "right time" to pull out. No such thing exists in a situation like that. When you have 2 groups or more that have competing agendas, there's never a good time to leave....that's why we shouldn't have gone in the first place.

 

[ScottNorwood]

I've got 10 more questions

1. How many horses did George Washington own?

2. Why don't Chinese people eat cheese?

3. Did Gandhi ever wear brown slacks?

4. Are native americans offended that we refer to toilet paper as TP?

5. If there were no elephants in India, would they still have that elephant got with all the arms and stuff?

6. Why was Mussolini such a jerkwad?

7. If the South won the civil war, would we still be going there to buy illegal fireworks?

8. Tennessee - is it the funniest sounding state?

9. Famous Benjamin's - whatcha got?

10. If Israel's national language was yiddish, would they be able to teach Hamas to be menschs?

 

[jamny]

I don't see how people can think, in hindsight, that pulling out of Iraq when we did was a good idea. Say what you want about the mistake to invade in the first place, but we clearly left too early. And now we might have to go back. That was a good idea?

Because if we stayed another 10 years this post of yours is just delayed by 10 years. If we stayed another 50 years the same question would be asked. We could have pulled out at "Mission Accomplished" and would have had this same discussion 10 years ago. We could never solve the power vacuum we created, only hide with our presence. And every day we are postponing the inevitable the factions on the outside are getting more organized, getting stronger, getting more radicalized. Once we went in, the sooner we left the better even if we had to go back and clean up again. In fact by staying so long we took away "our stomach" for some options.

You don't know that. So, as it is, it was the wrong decision.

 

[jamny]

I don't see how people can think, in hindsight, that pulling out of Iraq when we did was a good idea. Say what you want about the mistake to invade in the first place, but we clearly left too early. And now we might have to go back. That was a good idea?

I think it's pretty naive to believe there is a "right time" to pull out. No such thing exists in a situation like that. When you have 2 groups or more that have competing agendas, there's never a good time to leave....that's why we shouldn't have gone in the first place.

I agreed with the pullout at the time, thinking we somehow knew what we were doing. As it turns out, we didn't. It may take 50 years, and it needs to be a global effort, but this has to be reigned in. Allowing our weapons to get into the hands of ISIS during the fall of Mosul could have been prevented. It just escalated everything.

 

[timschochet]

I've got 10 more questions

1. How many horses did George Washington own? No idea. A few.

2. Why don't Chinese people eat cheese? Because they're uncivilized?

3. Did Gandhi ever wear brown slacks?

Yes as a lawyer in South Africa.

4. Are native americans offended that we refer to toilet paper as TP? Probably not.

5. If there were no elephants in India, would they still have that elephant got with all the arms and stuff?

Doubt it.

6. Why was Mussolini such a jerkwad? He was bald.

7. If the South won the civil war, would we still be going there to buy illegal fireworks?

Yes, but they would cost more.

8. Tennessee - is it the funniest sounding state?

Mississippi.

9. Famous Benjamin's - whatcha got? Nothing.

10. If Israel's national language was yiddish, would they be able to teach Hamas to be menschs?

I'm afraid not.

 

[Riversco]

2. Was it legal and Constitutional for the southern states to secede from the United States in 1860 and 1861?

Yes. And this one has a clearly right and wrong answer.

Absolutely and states still have that right today per Texas vs White.

Texas vs White clearly established that states have a right to secede. They do not have the right to unilaterally secede. They cannot just say "we're leaving the Union" and that's it. However, a state could go thru the legislature and have new laws passed to secede from the Union.

So, was it legal for Georgia to secede from the Union in 1860? Absolutely yes. Had they opted to petition the Congress and Congress gave them the go ahead, they could have seceded legally. Was it legal for Georgia to unilaterally secede from the Union in 1860? No. But, that's not the question you asked.

 

[timschochet]

2. Was it legal and Constitutional for the southern states to secede from the United States in 1860 and 1861?

Yes. And this one has a clearly right and wrong answer.

Absolutely and states still have that right today per Texas vs White.

Texas vs White clearly established that states have a right to secede. They do not have the right to unilaterally secede. They cannot just say "we're leaving the Union" and that's it. However, a state could go thru the legislature and have new laws passed to secede from the Union.

So, was it legal for Georgia to secede from the Union in 1860? Absolutely yes. Had they opted to petition the Congress and Congress gave them the go ahead, they could have seceded legally. Was it legal for Georgia to unilaterally secede from the Union in 1860? No. But, that's not the question you asked.

Even if you're correct (I have no idea) you're being deliberately legalistic, Christo. I think most people here understood the intent of the question.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I don't see how people can think, in hindsight, that pulling out of Iraq when we did was a good idea. Say what you want about the mistake to invade in the first place, but we clearly left too early. And now we might have to go back. That was a good idea?

Because if we stayed another 10 years this post of yours is just delayed by 10 years. If we stayed another 50 years the same question would be asked. We could have pulled out at "Mission Accomplished" and would have had this same discussion 10 years ago. We could never solve the power vacuum we created, only hide with our presence. And every day we are postponing the inevitable the factions on the outside are getting more organized, getting stronger, getting more radicalized. Once we went in, the sooner we left the better even if we had to go back and clean up again. In fact by staying so long we took away "our stomach" for some options.

You don't know that. So, as it is, it was the wrong decision.

No, you are correct. There is an outside chance you could have wised up on this in those 10 years. But I still think someone would have posted it.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I don't see how people can think, in hindsight, that pulling out of Iraq when we did was a good idea. Say what you want about the mistake to invade in the first place, but we clearly left too early. And now we might have to go back. That was a good idea?

The bolded is a pretty key assumption and I disagree with.

Same here. The Iraqis had their chance and they blew it.

 

[Slapdash]

2. Was it legal and Constitutional for the southern states to secede from the United States in 1860 and 1861?

Yes. And this one has a clearly right and wrong answer.

Absolutely and states still have that right today per Texas vs White.

Texas vs White clearly established that states have a right to secede. They do not have the right to unilaterally secede. They cannot just say "we're leaving the Union" and that's it. However, a state could go thru the legislature and have new laws passed to secede from the Union.

So, was it legal for Georgia to secede from the Union in 1860? Absolutely yes. Had they opted to petition the Congress and Congress gave them the go ahead, they could have seceded legally. Was it legal for Georgia to unilaterally secede from the Union in 1860? No. But, that's not the question you asked.

Even if you're correct (I have no idea) you're being deliberately legalistic, Christo. I think most people here understood the intent of the question.

Yes. Your intent/bias in all of these questions is clear.

 

[The Commish]

I don't see how people can think, in hindsight, that pulling out of Iraq when we did was a good idea. Say what you want about the mistake to invade in the first place, but we clearly left too early. And now we might have to go back. That was a good idea?

I think it's pretty naive to believe there is a "right time" to pull out. No such thing exists in a situation like that. When you have 2 groups or more that have competing agendas, there's never a good time to leave....that's why we shouldn't have gone in the first place.

I agreed with the pullout at the time, thinking we somehow knew what we were doing. As it turns out, we didn't. It may take 50 years, and it needs to be a global effort, but this has to be reigned in. Allowing our weapons to get into the hands of ISIS during the fall of Mosul could have been prevented. It just escalated everything.

I don't know what you mean by "reigned in" but I suspect it's never going to happen. As I said before, when you have very determined people who believe very deeply in their cause(es) there is never going to be a "good" time. Yes, there are things we can do to mitigate the spread, but containment is the best one can hope for in a situation like this. It won't ever be "fixed".

 

[timschochet]

2. Was it legal and Constitutional for the southern states to secede from the United States in 1860 and 1861?

Yes. And this one has a clearly right and wrong answer.

Absolutely and states still have that right today per Texas vs White.

Texas vs White clearly established that states have a right to secede. They do not have the right to unilaterally secede. They cannot just say "we're leaving the Union" and that's it. However, a state could go thru the legislature and have new laws passed to secede from the Union.

So, was it legal for Georgia to secede from the Union in 1860? Absolutely yes. Had they opted to petition the Congress and Congress gave them the go ahead, they could have seceded legally. Was it legal for Georgia to unilaterally secede from the Union in 1860? No. But, that's not the question you asked.

Even if you're correct (I have no idea) you're being deliberately legalistic, Christo. I think most people here understood the intent of the question.

Yes. Your intent/bias in all of these questions is clear.

Bias? I challenge that. Please give me an example of how any of these questions has been deliberately skewed to push one opinion over another.

 

[Slapdash]

2. Was it legal and Constitutional for the southern states to secede from the United States in 1860 and 1861?

Yes. And this one has a clearly right and wrong answer.

Absolutely and states still have that right today per Texas vs White.

Texas vs White clearly established that states have a right to secede. They do not have the right to unilaterally secede. They cannot just say "we're leaving the Union" and that's it. However, a state could go thru the legislature and have new laws passed to secede from the Union.

So, was it legal for Georgia to secede from the Union in 1860? Absolutely yes. Had they opted to petition the Congress and Congress gave them the go ahead, they could have seceded legally. Was it legal for Georgia to unilaterally secede from the Union in 1860? No. But, that's not the question you asked.

Even if you're correct (I have no idea) you're being deliberately legalistic, Christo. I think most people here understood the intent of the question.

Yes. Your intent/bias in all of these questions is clear.

Bias? I challenge that. Please give me an example of how any of these questions has been deliberately skewed to push one opinion over another.

Pretty clear from reading most of them.

 

[timschochet]

Really? Please explain, because I honestly have no idea what you're telling about.

 

[timschochet]

Really? Please explain, because I honestly have no idea what you're telling about.

bump. Slapdash refused to back it up I guess . Anybody else think that my questions are biased?

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I've got 10 more questions

1. How many horses did George Washington own?

2. Why don't Chinese people eat cheese?

3. Did Gandhi ever wear brown slacks?

4. Are native americans offended that we refer to toilet paper as TP?

5. If there were no elephants in India, would they still have that elephant got with all the arms and stuff?

6. Why was Mussolini such a jerkwad?

7. If the South won the civil war, would we still be going there to buy illegal fireworks?

8. Tennessee - is it the funniest sounding state?

9. Famous Benjamin's - whatcha got?

10. If Israel's national language was yiddish, would they be able to teach Hamas to be menschs?

I like this list better.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

These type of questions make my head hurt...I'm going to go drink a beer instead.

 

[Slapdash]

Really? Please explain, because I honestly have no idea what you're telling about.

You're not worth the time. Was going to respond to the questions but decided they weren't worth time either given how they are written.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

#5 Vietnam:... dumb ### decision to wage war in the first place, the perceived threat of communism was a joke IMO...all wars are winnable if we were to use any means necessary without concern for civilians..

#9 Iraq.....dumb ### decision...the perceived threat of Saddam was a joke IMO.

 

[timschochet]

Really? Please explain, because I honestly have no idea what you're telling about.

Your not worth the time. Was going to respond to the questions but decided they weren't worth time either given how they are written.

of course. Not worth the time to offer even one example of bias?

 

[Slapdash]

Really? Please explain, because I honestly have no idea what you're telling about.

Your not worth the time. Was going to respond to the questions but decided they weren't worth time either given how they are written.

of course. Not worth the time to offer even one example of bias?

Questions 1 through 20

 

[timschochet]

Sigh. Is there anyone who agrees with Slapdash that would like to point at a question and explain WHY it is biased?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

#5 Vietnam:... dumb ### decision to wage war in the first place, the perceived threat of communism was a joke IMO...all wars are winnable if we were to use any means necessary without concern for civilians..

#9 Iraq.....dumb ### decision...the perceived threat of Saddam was a joke IMO.

I don't know how long it will take, maybe 50 years until all the papers, emails and transcripts come out, but I think one day it will be shown the US was really after Iran and its nuclear weapons program which it did consider a legitimate problem.

I don't know how else to interpret a map in which we had placed armies on both sides of Iran.

Vietnam was about a larger policy of containment. I think the "War on Terror" was a Cold War style philosophy that was not enunciated to the public as such. But look at Obama just yesterday, on the one hand speaking of eliminating ISIS and then speaking of "containing" it. I think we have a broader policy that's been in effect for some time, but nothing like Kennan's work to accompany it. I think Wolfowitz wrote a similar position paper in the 90's which has gotten far less notoriety, but it's out there.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Sigh. Is there anyone who agrees with Slapdash that would like to point at a question and explain WHY it is biased?

I do think the questions are loaded with inherent editorialization. It would be great to look at some of the older threads on some of these questions and bump for broader discussion. I did that with Vietnam, IMO it's a great thread. This is going on in TSP right now, lots of new posters popping in as the season starts and posting a new thread about Mark Ingram when people have been discussing his situation since December of last year in a different thread. Basically you've taken the issues and framed them in your own POV and asked everyone to proceed. Which maybe is ok, people have enjoyed it, but it seems like it's losing a lot of depth on good subjects. - The OP also feels a little bit like an ideological questionnaire, as if we're being pinned into some ideological analysis. Feels a tad odd.

 

[timschochet]

Can you be more specific Saints? How are these questions editorialized or framed? It wasn't done purposefully, and I don't see it. I tried to come up what have been the most argued historical debates and the most argued current debates, and then frame them in terms of yes or no answers in order so as not to intimidate anyone. But I still don't see how they're biased.

 

[mr roboto]

Tim see how I answered above. Some of these questions are too simplistic or too prone to hindsight bias or historic revision.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I've got 10 more questions

1. How many horses did George Washington own?

It's closer to zero than you would think. Any horses he used during his time as an officer in the King's Army would have been the property of the King and Crown. Once he took over the leadership of the revolution his supplies were provided by the Congress. His wife, Martha, was very rich (always marry a rich woman if you can) and most of his money came from her estate and therefore his ownership of that property was more joint marital then his.

2. Why don't Chinese people eat cheese?

Dairy products like milk and cheese have not been a staple of the diet in asian culture and as a result there is a massive population of Chinese that are lactose intolerate. That is changing over time.

3. Did Gandhi ever wear brown slacks?
Yes. Before he was the Gandhi we all know from the history books and the movie with Ben Kingsley, he was a lawyer. Pants of varying colors that were respectible at the time would have been worn. In fact, there is a scene in the aforementioned movie at a train station where he is, in fact, wearing a brown suit.

4. Are native americans offended that we refer to toilet paper as TP?

Probably not. The tipi wasn't as widely used as housing as our current culture would have us believe.

5. If there were no elephants in India, would they still have that elephant got with all the arms and stuff?

Hard to tell. The common story surrounding Ganesha's head is that he was originally decapitated and was given a new head in the form of an elephant as one of his many powers is being the god that can remove all obstacles - something elephants have been used for since the beginning of time.

6. Why was Mussolini such a jerkwad?

He was originally a newspaperman who saw his beloved Italy get the shaft after WWI and believed that Italy should have been a greater country and recevied more in spoils from the Allies after that. He came to power is a fairly bloodless coup, and from there was determined to make Italy the ultimate European power. Few know that Hitler initially idolized Mussolini and how he created the Italian empire he did in such a short amount of time - the tables turned quickly though.

7. If the South won the civil war, would we still be going there to buy illegal fireworks?

Probably not. The United States would have ceased to exist and this continent would be very very different and most likely less democratic in structure.

8. Tennessee - is it the funniest sounding state?

I was always partial to Mississippi. But a massive underdog in the discussion is Montana. Depending on your accent you could be talking about yourself in the sun or your home town. Lots of possibilities.

9. Famous Benjamin's - whatcha got?

Franklin is the ultimate. Dr. Spock, Bebe Netanyahu, Ben Rush (massively undervalued politician from our revolutionary times), PResident Harrison, and Judge Cardoza are the ones that come to mind.

10. If Israel's national language was yiddish, would they be able to teach Hamas to be menschs?

No.

 

[timschochet]

Tim see how I answered above. Some of these questions are too simplistic or too prone to hindsight bias or historic revision.

again, can you provide a specific example of historical revision? Because I really wasn't trying to push any agenda, whatever Slapdash thinks.

 

[kentric]

I've got 10 more questions

1. How many horses did George Washington own?

It's closer to zero than you would think. Any horses he used during his time as an officer in the King's Army would have been the property of the King and Crown. Once he took over the leadership of the revolution his supplies were provided by the Congress. His wife, Martha, was very rich (always marry a rich woman if you can) and most of his money came from her estate and therefore his ownership of that property was more joint marital then his.

2. Why don't Chinese people eat cheese?

Dairy products like milk and cheese have not been a staple of the diet in asian culture and as a result there is a massive population of Chinese that are lactose intolerate. That is changing over time.

3. Did Gandhi ever wear brown slacks?

Yes. Before he was the Gandhi we all know from the history books and the movie with Ben Kingsley, he was a lawyer. Pants of varying colors that were respectible at the time would have been worn. In fact, there is a scene in the aforementioned movie at a train station where he is, in fact, wearing a brown suit.

4. Are native americans offended that we refer to toilet paper as TP?

Probably not. The tipi wasn't as widely used as housing as our current culture would have us believe.

5. If there were no elephants in India, would they still have that elephant got with all the arms and stuff?

Hard to tell. The common story surrounding Ganesha's head is that he was originally decapitated and was given a new head in the form of an elephant as one of his many powers is being the god that can remove all obstacles - something elephants have been used for since the beginning of time.

6. Why was Mussolini such a jerkwad?

He was originally a newspaperman who saw his beloved Italy get the shaft after WWI and believed that Italy should have been a greater country and recevied more in spoils from the Allies after that. He came to power is a fairly bloodless coup, and from there was determined to make Italy the ultimate European power. Few know that Hitler initially idolized Mussolini and how he created the Italian empire he did in such a short amount of time - the tables turned quickly though.

7. If the South won the civil war, would we still be going there to buy illegal fireworks?

Probably not. The United States would have ceased to exist and this continent would be very very different and most likely less democratic in structure.

8. Tennessee - is it the funniest sounding state?

I was always partial to Mississippi. But a massive underdog in the discussion is Montana. Depending on your accent you could be talking about yourself in the sun or your home town. Lots of possibilities.

9. Famous Benjamin's - whatcha got?

Franklin is the ultimate. Dr. Spock, Bebe Netanyahu, Ben Rush (massively undervalued politician from our revolutionary times), PResident Harrison, and Judge Cardoza are the ones that come to mind.

10. If Israel's national language was yiddish, would they be able to teach Hamas to be menschs?

No.

Damn. I'm awestruck.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I've got 10 more questions

1. How many horses did George Washington own?

It's closer to zero than you would think. Any horses he used during his time as an officer in the King's Army would have been the property of the King and Crown. Once he took over the leadership of the revolution his supplies were provided by the Congress. His wife, Martha, was very rich (always marry a rich woman if you can) and most of his money came from her estate and therefore his ownership of that property was more joint marital then his.

2. Why don't Chinese people eat cheese?

Dairy products like milk and cheese have not been a staple of the diet in asian culture and as a result there is a massive population of Chinese that are lactose intolerate. That is changing over time.

3. Did Gandhi ever wear brown slacks?

Yes. Before he was the Gandhi we all know from the history books and the movie with Ben Kingsley, he was a lawyer. Pants of varying colors that were respectible at the time would have been worn. In fact, there is a scene in the aforementioned movie at a train station where he is, in fact, wearing a brown suit.

4. Are native americans offended that we refer to toilet paper as TP?

Probably not. The tipi wasn't as widely used as housing as our current culture would have us believe.

5. If there were no elephants in India, would they still have that elephant got with all the arms and stuff?

Hard to tell. The common story surrounding Ganesha's head is that he was originally decapitated and was given a new head in the form of an elephant as one of his many powers is being the god that can remove all obstacles - something elephants have been used for since the beginning of time.

6. Why was Mussolini such a jerkwad?

He was originally a newspaperman who saw his beloved Italy get the shaft after WWI and believed that Italy should have been a greater country and recevied more in spoils from the Allies after that. He came to power is a fairly bloodless coup, and from there was determined to make Italy the ultimate European power. Few know that Hitler initially idolized Mussolini and how he created the Italian empire he did in such a short amount of time - the tables turned quickly though.

7. If the South won the civil war, would we still be going there to buy illegal fireworks?

Probably not. The United States would have ceased to exist and this continent would be very very different and most likely less democratic in structure.

8. Tennessee - is it the funniest sounding state?

I was always partial to Mississippi. But a massive underdog in the discussion is Montana. Depending on your accent you could be talking about yourself in the sun or your home town. Lots of possibilities.

9. Famous Benjamin's - whatcha got?

Franklin is the ultimate. Dr. Spock, Bebe Netanyahu, Ben Rush (massively undervalued politician from our revolutionary times), PResident Harrison, and Judge Cardoza are the ones that come to mind.

10. If Israel's national language was yiddish, would they be able to teach Hamas to be menschs?

No.

I would just like to point out this might actually qualify as a work of art.

 

[timschochet]

I gVe the same answer about Gandhi and Mississippi. Didn't understand the Benjamin question though- thought he was referring to a restaurant or something.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Can you be more specific Saints? How are these questions editorialized or framed? It wasn't done purposefully, and I don't see it. I tried to come up what have been the most argued historical debates and the most argued current debates, and then frame them in terms of yes or no answers in order so as not to intimidate anyone. But I still don't see how they're biased.

Ok, randomly take Question 1:

Here's your question:

1. For the United States to develop into the nation we are today, was it inevitable that native Americans had to be subjugated, their lands taken away, and their culture destroyed?

Instead of -a- creating a new thread, or -b- creating this ADHD mind overload, why not -c- look up a cool old thread like Joe's here and see if anyone wants to discuss the topic?

I'd like to learn more there past the basics. Was wondering if some of you History Guys could recommend some books on that topic. I guess specifically on how we took over their land and resources.

Its a story of oppression. You could compare the movie to how the communist Chinese obliterated the Tibetans, or to how the Soviet athiests tried to obliterate Christianity in Russia. You should read some books on those subjects as well.

Etc.

Maybe we could learn something, and maybe discuss the issue along the way. (Though personally I need to get on to other things).

I mean, are we just going to be posting in this thread only, or will we post in here and then post again in the Redskins thread?

Secondly, you use words like "inevitable" and "subjugated" and "lands taken away" and "culture destroyed." Obviously you are saying those things did happen, you are saying it was "inevitable", and yet you say "Probably." Probably does not equal "inevitable." That question, statement and associated syntax takes a whole thread unto itself.

 

[timschochet]

Can you be more specific Saints? How are these questions editorialized or framed? It wasn't done purposefully, and I don't see it. I tried to come up what have been the most argued historical debates and the most argued current debates, and then frame them in terms of yes or no answers in order so as not to intimidate anyone. But I still don't see how they're biased.

Ok, randomly take Question 1:

Here's your question:

1. For the United States to develop into the nation we are today, was it inevitable that native Americans had to be subjugated, their lands taken away, and their culture destroyed?

Instead of -a- creating a new thread, or -b- creating this ADHD mind overload, why not -c- look up a cool old thread like Joe's here and see if anyone wants to discuss the topic?

I'd like to learn more there past the basics. Was wondering if some of you History Guys could recommend some books on that topic. I guess specifically on how we took over their land and resources.

Its a story of oppression. You could compare the movie to how the communist Chinese obliterated the Tibetans, or to how the Soviet athiests tried to obliterate Christianity in Russia. You should read some books on those subjects as well.

Etc.

Maybe we could learn something, and maybe discuss the issue along the way. (Though personally I need to get on to other things).

I mean, are we just going to be posting in this thread only, or will we post in here and then post again in the Redskins thread?

Secondly, you use words like "inevitable" and "subjugated" and "lands taken away" and "culture destroyed." Obviously you are saying those things did happen, you are saying it was "inevitable", and yet you say "Probably." Probably does not equal "inevitable." That question, statement and associated syntax takes a whole thread unto itself.

You've lost me, Saints. First off, when did I write "probably"? In what context? Second, are you suggesting that it's biased for me to state that Native Americans were subjugated, had their lands taken away, and their culture destroyed? Is there anyone here who denies that that happened?

I don't understand this criticism at all. And I further don't understand what it has to do with Slapdash's criticism, which (if I understand him correctly), is that I framed these questions in such a way as to push my own political agenda. I take real umbrage at that accusation, because I tried as hard as I could to be fair about these questions and ask them in the least biased way possible.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I thought tim's questions are basically fine. We all know what he thinks about each of them since he's written extensively on every imaginable topic, and I think that's making people see bias where there really isn't.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Can you be more specific Saints? How are these questions editorialized or framed? It wasn't done purposefully, and I don't see it. I tried to come up what have been the most argued historical debates and the most argued current debates, and then frame them in terms of yes or no answers in order so as not to intimidate anyone. But I still don't see how they're biased.

Ok, randomly take Question 1:

Here's your question:

1. For the United States to develop into the nation we are today, was it inevitable that native Americans had to be subjugated, their lands taken away, and their culture destroyed?

Instead of -a- creating a new thread, or -b- creating this ADHD mind overload, why not -c- look up a cool old thread like Joe's here and see if anyone wants to discuss the topic?

I'd like to learn more there past the basics. Was wondering if some of you History Guys could recommend some books on that topic. I guess specifically on how we took over their land and resources.

Its a story of oppression. You could compare the movie to how the communist Chinese obliterated the Tibetans, or to how the Soviet athiests tried to obliterate Christianity in Russia. You should read some books on those subjects as well.

Etc.

Maybe we could learn something, and maybe discuss the issue along the way. (Though personally I need to get on to other things).

I mean, are we just going to be posting in this thread only, or will we post in here and then post again in the Redskins thread?

Secondly, you use words like "inevitable" and "subjugated" and "lands taken away" and "culture destroyed." Obviously you are saying those things did happen, you are saying it was "inevitable", and yet you say "Probably." Probably does not equal "inevitable." That question, statement and associated syntax takes a whole thread unto itself.

You've lost me, Saints. First off, when did I write "probably"? In what context? Second, are you suggesting that it's biased for me to state that Native Americans were subjugated, had their lands taken away, and their culture destroyed? Is there anyone here who denies that that happened?

I don't understand this criticism at all. And I further don't understand what it has to do with Slapdash's criticism, which (if I understand him correctly), is that I framed these questions in such a way as to push my own political agenda. I take real umbrage at that accusation, because I tried as hard as I could to be fair about these questions and ask them in the least biased way possible.

Ok on the 1st point, apologies, that was another poster further up that stated that.

About this:

Second, are you suggesting that it's biased for me to state that Native Americans were subjugated, had their lands taken away, and their culture destroyed? Is there anyone here who denies that that happened?

See, that's it, that's what you want to say, that's your point. But look at all the question marks. Just say it.

 

[timschochet]

Can you be more specific Saints? How are these questions editorialized or framed? It wasn't done purposefully, and I don't see it. I tried to come up what have been the most argued historical debates and the most argued current debates, and then frame them in terms of yes or no answers in order so as not to intimidate anyone. But I still don't see how they're biased.

Ok, randomly take Question 1:

Here's your question:

1. For the United States to develop into the nation we are today, was it inevitable that native Americans had to be subjugated, their lands taken away, and their culture destroyed?

Instead of -a- creating a new thread, or -b- creating this ADHD mind overload, why not -c- look up a cool old thread like Joe's here and see if anyone wants to discuss the topic?

I'd like to learn more there past the basics. Was wondering if some of you History Guys could recommend some books on that topic. I guess specifically on how we took over their land and resources.

Its a story of oppression. You could compare the movie to how the communist Chinese obliterated the Tibetans, or to how the Soviet athiests tried to obliterate Christianity in Russia. You should read some books on those subjects as well.

Etc.

Maybe we could learn something, and maybe discuss the issue along the way. (Though personally I need to get on to other things).

I mean, are we just going to be posting in this thread only, or will we post in here and then post again in the Redskins thread?

Secondly, you use words like "inevitable" and "subjugated" and "lands taken away" and "culture destroyed." Obviously you are saying those things did happen, you are saying it was "inevitable", and yet you say "Probably." Probably does not equal "inevitable." That question, statement and associated syntax takes a whole thread unto itself.

You've lost me, Saints. First off, when did I write "probably"? In what context? Second, are you suggesting that it's biased for me to state that Native Americans were subjugated, had their lands taken away, and their culture destroyed? Is there anyone here who denies that that happened?

I don't understand this criticism at all. And I further don't understand what it has to do with Slapdash's criticism, which (if I understand him correctly), is that I framed these questions in such a way as to push my own political agenda. I take real umbrage at that accusation, because I tried as hard as I could to be fair about these questions and ask them in the least biased way possible.

Ok on the 1st point, apologies, that was another poster further up that stated that.

About this:

Second, are you suggesting that it's biased for me to state that Native Americans were subjugated, had their lands taken away, and their culture destroyed? Is there anyone here who denies that that happened?

See, that's it, that's what you want to say, that's your point. But look at all the question marks. Just say it.

But I didn't want to say that. That's not an argument on my part. I wasn't aware that it was in controversy. I was stating what I believed to be objectively true, not an opinion.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

This thread was getting better...... and now not so much.

 

[kentric]

This thread was getting better...... and now not so much.

Agreed. It was interesting getting peoples' views on historical events and its turned into beating on Tim and Tim defending himself.

 

[Fennis]

7. If the South won the civil war, would we still be going there to buy illegal fireworks?

Probably not. The United States would have ceased to exist and this continent would be very very different and most likely less democratic in structure.

Your anti southern bias is showing yet again. Not only would the US still exist as a strong democracy, but the South would clearly be the place to buy fireworks.

 

[Fennis]

This thread was getting better...... and now not so much.

Agreed. It was interesting getting peoples' views on historical events and its turned into beating on Tim and Tim defending himself.

Yankee sure says a lot of nothing, huh?

 

[mr roboto]

I don't think you have a clear agenda (like R or D) but I do believe the way you categorize in your mind is very simplistic. By that I don't think you have a simplistic mind - you are generally well read and pretty intelligent on many points. But you do suffer from trying to over simplify complex problems and issues. Some of your questions were very narrow ( Roe v Wade - you asked specifically if it was constitutional). Others were impossibly broad (Reagan credit for Cold War).

 

[Yankee23Fan]

7. If the South won the civil war, would we still be going there to buy illegal fireworks?

Probably not. The United States would have ceased to exist and this continent would be very very different and most likely less democratic in structure.

Your anti southern bias is showing yet again. Not only would the US still exist as a strong democracy, but the South would clearly be the place to buy fireworks.

Not a southern bias at all. If the country got broken in half like that the north had more resources than the south so there would have been continued fighting over the westward expansion. And more war and more war, and there were seccession movements in the northeast that could have taken hold and splintered the north that much more. People also seem to forget the lack of democracy in the south - towards the end, Jefferson Davis was a dictator more than a President.

Foreign governments would have had to prop up the south at some point, or the south would have had to start moving south into Mexico which just means more war. The constant living under the threat of war with a bordering nation that you share a lot of the same demographics with would not have lead to an open a free society in either America.

But as to the main question - fireworks - you might be right. Be like getting Cuban cigars now. Everyone knows you can't have them but everyone has them anyway.

 

[cstu]

8. Could our government reasonably have prevented the events of September 11, 2001? Of course not.

The CIA knew two of the future 9/11 attackers were in the U.S. but failed to inform the FBI.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/07/10/the-agent

The New Yorker has a show out and covers this in the first episode.