Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

esskreemr · 02-10-2005, 04:46 PM

The new budget increases spending for war by decreasing spending for Social Programs. When you cast your vote for Bush, was this what you wanted?

Soldier · 02-10-2005, 07:34 PM

Interesting that eleven people have voted, and nobody yet has posted.

L.O.A.S. · 02-10-2005, 07:49 PM

Quick answer - Yes. I'm sure if I looked closer, there would be things I liked and things I disliked. Poll again in 4 years.

gojujay · 02-10-2005, 08:43 PM

I voted for Badnarik. Liberty rocks

Inquartata · 02-10-2005, 08:50 PM

I kind of like the idea, because unlike social programs wars eventually end and expenditures drop again. But I didn't vote for Bush, so I'm a bit at sea on how to vote on the poll...

Which means...

The poll is poorly designed and methodologically flawed!

Someone had to say it.

mrbiggs · 02-10-2005, 08:54 PM

In 50 years, Bush will be remembered as either one of the greatest presidents ever or one of the biggest failures, depending on how the economy and Iraq works out. I could see him described as a visionary who took a stance, and who wasn't afraid to change America. I could also see him described as a President who forced his views on an unwilling America and America was right.

Soldier · 02-10-2005, 08:56 PM

...or all of our delusions about living in this most influential period of American history with the president that made such a difference (for better or worse) will be dispelled, leaving Bush and this period forgotten to most except for history students.

Larrison · 02-10-2005, 09:10 PM

Ask me in 4 years, maybe 2 depending upon what happened.

Since he's been in office after being sworn in on his second term for about a month, its probably too soon to tell -- and I sure want to see how Congress votes on his policies and the new budget, and what else they pass and how he reacts before I'd like to state an opinion on his second term.

Now, if you wanted to present a poll on how Bush has been doing in general for the last 4 years he's been in office and how it compares to what he said....

mrbiggs · 02-10-2005, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soldier

...or all of our delusions about living in this most influential period of American history with the president that made such a difference (for better or worse) will be dispelled, leaving Bush and this period forgotten to most except for history students.

True. I would never think this period to be influential. But I'm saying that in the future, said history students will be one way or the other. It'll be neat to find out which.

esskreemr · 02-11-2005, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inquartata

The poll is poorly designed and methodologically flawed!

Someone had to say it.

I have to agree with you on that. I was in a hurry and can't edit, oh well...

esskreemr · 02-11-2005, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

True. I would never think this period to be influential. But I'm saying that in the future, said history students will be one way or the other. It'll be neat to find out which.

Actually, I believe this period to be pivotal. Much like the fall of the Berlin Wall, the events of Sept 11 will be inked into the annals of American History as having a major impact on American foreign policy. Ever since the break up of the Soviet Union, the "dogs of war", a standard now taken up by the neo-con elite, have been looking for a new enemy to prop up as the poster child of America's (that's the U.S. of A for u Europeans

) Public Enemy Number One. The War on Terror, of which it is doubtful can be won by conventional means, provides another USSR for the U.S. to divert nearly inconcievable sums of money in the interest of National Security. Look at the after effects. A group of enemies strikes on home soil. We spend a little bit of money on the facade of tightening up security on our own soil, and we spend tremendous amounts of money rattling sabres and chasing after the ghosts of hydras.

mrbiggs · 02-12-2005, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Actually, I believe this period to be pivotal. Much like the fall of the Berlin Wall, the events of Sept 11 will be inked into the annals of American History as having a major impact on American foreign policy. Ever since the break up of the Soviet Union, the "dogs of war", a standard now taken up by the neo-con elite, have been looking for a new enemy to prop up as the poster child of America's (that's the U.S. of A for u Europeans

) Public Enemy Number One. The War on Terror, of which it is doubtful can be won by conventional means, provides another USSR for the U.S. to divert nearly inconcievable sums of money in the interest of National Security. Look at the after effects. A group of enemies strikes on home soil. We spend a little bit of money on the facade of tightening up security on our own soil, and we spend tremendous amounts of money rattling sabres and chasing after the ghosts of hydras.

The only other time we have been attacked on our own soil is the War of 1812, which doesn't even have a name. I think that these issues will be recognized as the most important of this time, but I don't think that this time will be recognized as much more than the time between WW2 and whatever comes next.

Drifter · 02-12-2005, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

The only other time we have been attacked on our own soil is the War of 1812, which doesn't even have a name. I think that these issues will be recognized as the most important of this time, but I don't think that this time will be recognized as much more than the time between WW2 and whatever comes next.

Sorry. That is a common falicy caused by an amazing lack of knowledge our own history in today's society. War's on American soil include:

Revolutionary war (Obvious I know)
1812
The Indian Wars
Mexican border war (Mexican-American War)
Civil War (Obvious I know)

And the Spanish-American war was started as a result of a terrorist attack on the US Maine in Havana harbor a very small number of miles away from the US mainland.

Additionally, there were in fact attacks on the Pacific coast during WWII but they were admittedly very strange attacks, (Balloon oddities and the like which many people have debated over the years)

America's Wars
http://www.multied.com/wars.html

LUDICROUS · 02-13-2005, 12:15 AM

I remember seeing on TV a show about how little the average american high schooler knew about the USA's history - I found it funny that I knew more than they did, but I don't exactly get lectured on it - I just read books, and I'm in high school

mrbiggs · 02-13-2005, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drifter

Sorry. That is a common falicy caused by an amazing lack of knowledge our own history in today's society. War's on American soil include:

Revolutionary war (Obvious I know)
1812
The Indian Wars
Mexican border war (Mexican-American War)
Civil War (Obvious I know)

And the Spanish-American war was started as a result of a terrorist attack on the US Maine in Havana harbor a very small number of miles away from the US mainland.

Additionally, there were in fact attacks on the Pacific coast during WWII but they were admittedly very strange attacks, (Balloon oddities and the like which many people have debated over the years)

America's Wars
http://www.multied.com/wars.html

The Revolutionary, Civil, and Indian wars are all civil wars, and I should have exempted civil wars from my statement.

The Mexican border war is more obscure to the American public than the War of 1812. (Outside of the areas it affected, like Texas.)

Thank you for the correction.

But my point stands.

ElMariachi · 02-13-2005, 01:40 AM

Well I totally forgot to vote...

Anyways I like bush on some things but not others. His environmental policy stinks but I like how he took out saddam. No matter what the reason for the invasion be it for oil or to uphold UN resoulutions the outcome, the freedom of the Iraqi people from a tyrannical and cruel dictator, was worth the cost of American lives.

Probably gonna catch some flak for saying that but I think helping out the Iraqis was worth it...

Larrison · 02-13-2005, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drifter

Sorry. That is a common falicy caused by an amazing lack of knowledge our own history in today's society. War's on American soil include:

Revolutionary war (Obvious I know)
1812
The Indian Wars
Mexican border war (Mexican-American War)
Civil War (Obvious I know)
[/url]

Also Pancho Villa's raid into New Mexico in the 1910's when his troops attacked and attempted to sack a town in New Mexcio -- leading to a US punitive expedition into Northern Mexcio during the Mexican Civil Wars.

Japanese attacks on the mainland US (ignoring places like Hawaii, Alaska, Phillipines, Guam, Wake, Midway, etc.) included submarine shelling, balloon attacks (a surprizing number of them, well over 9000 were launched), and at least one air attack (float plane, launched from a submarine).

The Germans launched covert sabotage raids into the US in both World War I and World War II, but these were relatively ineffective and not publicized by either side.

Bokken · 02-14-2005, 08:36 AM

Quote:

The only other time we have been attacked on our own soil is the War of 1812, which doesn't even have a name.

Yes it did/does. They called it "Mr. Madison's War."

As I recall, it had something to do with American sailors getting press-ganged by the Brits...

Soldier · 02-14-2005, 12:41 PM

So, looking at the polls so far, it seems those five of us who did vote for Bush, are still glad to have done so, while nobody else voted for him to begin with.

scrapinpeg · 02-14-2005, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bokken

Yes it did/does. They called it "Mr. Madison's War."

As I recall, it had something to do with American sailors getting press-ganged by the Brits...

The US was upset not only because its citizens were being kidnapped and forced into service on British warships, but also because the British blockade of France was putting a crimp in our exports.

Speaking of forgotten wars, people keep forgetting that purely naval war the US fought against France from 1898 to about 1801.

The US disbanded its navy after the Revolutionary War, starting a long tradition of idiotic disarmament making us remarkably unprepared at the start of almost every conflict up to the first Gulf War.

The one exception was our state of naval preparedness in the War of 1812, which we had because of this forgotten naval war with France.

Seems that, once we sold off our first navy, our merchants were easy prey for the pirates in the Mediterranean. So we hastily put together a little navy to protect the merchants. Then France started sending privateers (warships owned by private individuals, but operating under government orders) to capture our merchant ships and sink our navy. So we quickly built it up into an effective fighting force noted for its discipline and precision combat tactics. France had enough problems with England's navy, and after a few years of ongoing (though never officially declared) shooting war, called it off.

The US Navy that came out of this war was a surprisingly high-quality force, which shocked the British with a series of naval victories at the start of the War of 1812.