No, they don’t.
Well, no, I posted it here because I thought that is where it belonged. Now that I’ve see the reactions it elicited, I’m convinced the real answer to that question was “nowhere”; there’s no point in challenging “conventional wisdom.” Here or elsewhere.
The above post is an example of one of the tiredest internet kiddie tricks around.
I was never trying to convince anyone of anything, but simply articulating an opinion. I was then repeatedly asked to PROVE MY OPINION!
How asinine.
And yes indeedy, “GWB is to blame for all current ills” is indeed a liberal mantra, and one of the reasons I’m ashamed to admit I’m a liberal (YESSSSS! I can be critical of liberals/Obama/etc. and still be a liberal, and I can defend GWB and not be a conservative!)
Since we’re not getting anywhere with the OP, allow me to hijack this trainwreck for a moment to ask: really?!
I’m currently taking a college survey course in U.S. History and we just covered the Wilson era. Of course, we didn’t go into much detail, but this description is VERY different (in a significantly more critical way) than what I’ve been learning. I was offended by attack on personal liberty of the Espionage Act and Sedition Amendment and I agree that he was a racist asshole. Understandable, though despicable, given his southern upbringing as the son of a slave-owning Confederate.
However, I got a very different impression of what went down with regard to the Versailles Treaty and the League of Nations and that Wilson was not in favor of the extensive reparations the treaty required of Germany. My impression was that it was a vindictive Triple Entente that basically rejected all of Wilson’s Fourteen Points with the exception of the League of Nations; and that Congress, specifically Henry Cabot Lodge, ultimately rejected the United States’ inclusion in the League of Nations, despite Wilson’s intent to be part of it, on the basis of maintaining U.S. autonomy with regard to entering wars. I can’t see how one can blame Wilson for the Treaty of Versailles or the exclusion of the U.S. from the League of Nations when the post-war mood of the country had become weary of intervention in foreign affairs.
I also didn’t get the impression that the threat from Germany could be deemed “fictional” despite the fact that the Zimmerman Note went nowhere with the Mexican government; it clearly spelled out Germany’s intent to disrupt the U.S. discouraging its support of the Allies/entry into WWI. The Zimmerman Note and strong anti-German public sentiment coupled with Germany’s resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare and the sinking of the Lusitania resigned Wilson to the war he appeared to be trying to avoid, on which avoidance he was reelected in 1916. I didn’t get the impression Wilson was itching for a reason to engage in WWI as your statement implies.
Your assessment fails to consider Wilson’s extensive legislative agenda of his first term that is highly regarded by historians, including the establishment of the Federal Trade Commission and Federal Reserve System, the passage of the Antitrust Act, the Farm Loan Act and Keating-Owen Act (child labor reform)*
Am I completely misunderstanding Wilson’s legacy? I have also read that Wilson is rated highly by historians across the board, and although flawed, was no slouch as a president. I’m kind of dumbfounded by the surprise expressed of Qin’s comments about Wilson’s greatness. I wasn’t aware that assessment was so distinctly questionable.
- Which, I understand, SCOTUS found unconstitutional, but that ruling was later overturned.
Mission Accomplished!
Why do you say stuff like that as if it makes you unique? It’s rather insulting and smacks of arrogance.
No one in this thread has criticized you for questioning Obama. You’ve been criticized for making unsubstantiated sweeping claims which seem extraordinarily untrue to everyone else. You then insult the people you wish to have a dialog with and refuse to participate in the normal give and take of a ideological conversation.
In my opinion, the sky is green. Don’t ask me for a cite-- it’s just my opinion.
But I do agree that this thread should have been moved to GD. IMHO is more for asking advise-- should I shave my head or grow my hair long? There isn’t a right answer to that, and it’s all about opinion. What’s the best gift to give so-and-so at their wedding?
But the idea that Obama has done a certain thing, which he demonstrably has not done, isn’t “an opinion”. It’s a statement contrary to fact.
Missed the edit window…
And if I start a thread with the title “Why is the sky green”, then I’m not voicing an opinion. I’m asking people to explain to me why something is what it isn’t. Now, perhaps the best response is: “Sure, sure, sweet dear. The sky is green because fairies made it that way. Now, you just rest while, OK? I’ll just leave your pill by the glass of water on this little table. Be sure and take it later!”
The poor thing doesn’t know the difference between the expression of an opinion, and the statement of a fact! Maybe they didn’t teach that at his junior school?
And he thinks he’s challenging, well, something? (A lengthy and somewhat thorough list of reasons why Bush is blamed for ‘everything’ was posted, and the single challenge to it was; he didn’t actually build Gitmo, it was there, he just turned it into what it is now. Alright then.)
And now the poor thing is all butthurt because he thought he could post any kind of tripe, and not be challenged! I have the feeling we were supposed to be all super impressed with his clever self.
Or maybe he came all primed for a good old schoolyard screaming match, and was just confused, when asked, ‘got any evidence what you’re saying is true?’ Sometimes it’s way easier to be a martyr, than employ your actual gray matter.
Hey, don’t insult Junior colleges. The students I taught had significantly better critical thinking skills.
You’re subtle, I’ll give you that. But to be remembered you’re gonna have to bring your A game. Come on, dude… you can do it.
This is one those threads that lingers around like a fart in phone booth. An embarrassment to the originator of the [del]fart[/del] OP.
College? I highly doubt this thinker saw college, except from the bus, I said ‘junior school’. Where I live that’s 5th - 8th grade. Which, if I’m correct, is when most youngsters learn to identify an opinion from a statement of fact!
Ah, junior high! Some folks call community college junior colleges. I agree completely!
This thread reminds me of the ages old question: How many libertarians can dance on the head of a conservative? Answer: It depends upon which Liberal you ask.
In general we were asking what you based your opinion upon. Hard to discuss a case of mistaken interpretation of something if we do not know what you are basing your belief upon.
[QUOTE=greenslime1951]
I’ll tell you what, though…I’ll find and post links to TEN, count 'em, TEN Obama speeches (text or video) wherein he blames the current economic malaise on the GWB administration, IF you, and any every other internet kiddie who has thrown mud at me in this thread will apologize for, in effect, calling me a fool and a liar for, God forfend, offering an opinion you feel is unsubstantiated once I do so.
[/QUOTE]
88 posts and counting on that offer.
It was Bush’s fault until 2010. Now it’s Obama’s fault. His team are not campaigning for Democratic legislators, let alone progressives. There is no 50-state plan, there is no attempt to gain seats and get a majority. It’s the same old Clintonista plan of putting a Democrat in the White House and letting the GOP run the states and Congress.
That said, I’m beginning to believe that the GOP run this country, and just throw elections once in a while to hide the fact that it is a one-party state.