Hello:

Didja hear? The president read TWO books on history... Nahhhh, NOT the dufus in chief. He doesn't read history (and we can TELL)!! I'm talking about your NEW president.

Isn't it nice that were going to have a president who has a strong sense of history??

excon

Well you can call him a dufus if you want. It IS a SEMI-free country. But George W. Bush read the Bible, there is plenty of history in it and it also explains what shall take place in the future. He Also prayed everyday. So make fun of him if you wish. I'd prefer a president that read the Bible and prayed. Anyhow, that is my two cents... I imagine you don't think it is worth two... ha! :)

Hello T:

I think your opinion is as valuable as mine. I just don't happen to agree with it. But, you do bring up good stuff.

I agree with you, that he looks to the Bible instead of the Constitution or American history for guidance. Had he bothered to check with either, he would have found out that torture is an anathema to this great country. He would have found out that, due process of law, and the freedom of Americans NOT to be spied upon without a warrant by their government, IS the foundation - no, it's the CORNERSTONE of our civil liberties...

Yet, the dufus in chief trampled on our legacy. You're right. We're only semi free these days. But, we USED to be free - before the dufus.

In addition, due to his beliefs, he dumbs us down by supporting the teaching of creationism along side evolution... He doesn't understand stem cell research. In fact, your girl, Sarah Palin made fun of scientific research involving the use of fruit fly's. That's not going to help us compete in the science's.

And, finally, because he doesn't understand history OR economics, he's spent us into the ground, in case you haven't noticed...

It's a good thing that Obama is going to change all that...

excon

I know you won't believe this but President Bush is a prolific reader.
Maybe you would believe CNN if they reported it ?
CNN.com - What the president reads - Jan 10, 2005

Hello tom:

I actually DO believe he reads. I DO believe that he's not as stupid as he sounds. I Do believe that he's a nice guy.

However, I don't see ANY continuity of Americanism in ANY of his policies. I DO see Christianism in his stuff.

I don't doubt that he's read history. But, he has trouble distinguishing HISTORY from RELIGION, and he has trouble distinguishing either of those from FAIRY TALES.

excon

History books are facts, I prefer a president who reads about facts.

More on his reading habits from BBC
BBC NEWS | Americas | Bush reading reveals history fan

How about some philosophy ?
Bush reads Camus's 'The Stranger' on ranch vacation

Quote:

---

I don't see ANY continuity of Americanism in ANY of his policies

---

Perhaps you should read some history then. His basic foreign policy goes back at least as far as Teddy Roosevelt's and Woodrow Wilson's interventionism . That was reaffirmed in his reading of Saransky's thesis about promoting freedom through the ballot box.

By the way " what were the books Obama read ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Perhaps you should read some history then.

---

Hello again, tom:

I've read some... Mostly AMERICAN history... Funny, you don't mention THAT!

But, speaking of Roosevelt and Wilson, did they render prisoners to secret prisons? Did they torture? Did they spy on their own people? Did they take the peoples habeas corpus rights away?? Did they START wars? Nahhhh, they didn't do any of that crap.

Nope. One book by a right wing neocon, does NOT a history buff make.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

btw " what were the books Obama read ?

---

Hello again, tom:

The one by Jonathan Alter, a Newsweek reporter and author of “The Defining Moment: F D R's Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope,” published in 2006. And “F D R” by Jean Edward Smith, a biography published last year by Random House that covers far more than the first 100 days.

excon

Quote:

---

The one by Jonathan Alter, a Newsweek reporter and author of “The Defining Moment: F D R's Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope,” published in 2006.

And “F D R” by Jean Edward Smith, a biography published last year by Random House that covers far more than the first 100 days.

---

considering that FDR just took Hoover's recovery ideas and injected them with a dose of stearoids and unconstitutional actions on the economy that extended the Depression a decade ;I guess that does give us insight into Obama. As a side note;when SCOTUS declared his major policies unconstitutional he tried to pack the court by changing the number of justices . Even his own Democrat Congress put a stop to that power play.

Quote:

---

But, speaking of Roosevelt and Wilson, did they render prisoners to secret prisons? Did they torture? Did they spy on their own people? Did they take the peoples habeas corpus rights away?? Did they START wars? Nahhhh, they didn't do any of that crap.

---

Of course I can give you historical examples when these big complaints about President Bush have happened in a far worse degree than President Bush has done (except the "extended Star Wars complaint which in truth is missile defense ) . What ? You forget the internment of the Japanese-Americans (since we love FDR so much )? What ? You forgot Wilson's Espionage Act ? What you forgot the actual torture committed against the Phillipines in the Philippine-American War that claimed 4,196 American soldiers dead ?

Saransky ,a survivor of the gulag ,and you dismiss him with a "neocon" pejorative that is really a compliment .

From all the books I've ever read about FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt I find that FDR had more commie ideas than any other president before or since. All his alphabet agencies building things for this country. In a way it was like communism in that most of the people worked for the government. Am I wrong about this? Don't think so. FDR really was not for the "little guy" at all as it turned out. He was a dictator just as Joseph Stalin was - only sugarcoated.

I would think that O would have read some swell books like "Me, Me, Me, and Myself" by B. Obama and his other favorite "Myself and Me Together Again". On sale now at your local bookstore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spitvenom

History books are facts, I prefer a president who reads about facts.

---

I wouldn't bet a lot on history books being facts, if I were you. Several years ago, my granddaughter showed me her history book in which it stated that UN forces defeated Germany!! An outright lie, as the UN did not even exist at that time. It was US forces that defeated Germany, Japan, and Italy.

History books can be as slanted as any other printed media.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

The one by Jonathan Alter, a Newsweek reporter and author of “The Defining Moment: F D R’s Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope,” published in 2006. And “F D R” by Jean Edward Smith, a biography published last year by Random House that covers far more than the first 100 days.

excon

---

If Obama is going to pattern after FDR then GOD HELP US! You may have to trade your gold in for Euro dollars too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galveston1

I wouldn't bet a lot on history books being facts, if I were you. Several years ago, my granddaughter showed me her history book in which it stated that UN forces defeated Germany!!! An outright lie, as the UN did not even exist at that time. It was US forces that defeated Germany, Japan, and Italy.

History books can be as slanted as any other printed media.

---

Uhumm. The ALLIED Forces beat Germany and Japan. Sure you guys dropped your big bomb only after direct attack on your country to force Japan to surrender when it was all but over but please don't be disrespectful enough to insinuate that it was solely the US who won the war.

Im sure that is what you Americans are taught at school and its probably in all your history books, but it simply isn't so. The Russians on the Eastern Front played a mighty role in Germany's defeat. As did the rest of the Allied forces all across Europe. Your Canadian neighbours suffered great casualties as did our tiny nation down under here. In fact many more per head of population than you did.

So in fact you proved your point Gal. History books certainly can be slanted.

You won't like this Gal but maybe you need a dose of history.

Imagine that on 9/11, six hours after the assault on the twin towers and the Pentagon, terrorists had carried out a second wave of attacks on the United States, taking an additional 3,000 lives. Imagine that six hours after that, there had been yet another wave. Now imagine that the attacks had continued, every six hours, for another four years, until nearly 20 million Americans were dead. This is roughly what the Soviet Union suffered during World War II, and contemplating these numbers may help put in perspective what the United States has so far experienced during the war against terrorism.

David A. Bell, a professor of history at Johns Hopkins University

Sorry to get off track everybody but Gal needed a lesson on History.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skell

Uhumm. The ALLIED Forces beat Germany and Japan. Sure you guys dropped your big bomb only after direct attack on your country to force Japan to surrender when it was all but over but please dont be disrespectful enough to insinuate that it was solely the US who won the war.

Im sure that is what you Americans are taught at school and its probably in all your history books, but it simply isnt so. The Russians on the Eastern Front played a mighty role in Germany's defeat. As did the rest of the Allied forces all across Europe. Your Canadian neighbours suffered great casualties as did our tiny nation down under here. In fact many more per head of population than you did.

---

I don't recall the war being all but over when the US got involved. It was almost 4 years after Pearl Harbor when Japan surrendered so the US was involved for nearly 2/3 of the war. And I imagine most history books still refer to the Allied victory. If anything, the US is probably demeaned for our use of nuclear weapons.

But Skell does have a good point. Gal. did say It was US forces that defeated Germany, Japan, and Italy.American text books usually gloss over the Soviet contribution to the allies

But comparative force structures prove that Germany expended much more manpower in it's efforts to defeat the Soviet Union. We talk about the losses on D-Day and we should . But in the Battle of Stalingrad ;a combined 1.5 million casualties occurred just among the combatants . Add civilian casualties to the mix and it was the largest single battle in human history. .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galveston1

I wouldn't bet a lot on history books being facts, if I were you. Several years ago, my granddaughter showed me her history book in which it stated that UN forces defeated Germany!!! An outright lie, as the UN did not even exist at that time. It was US forces that defeated Germany, Japan, and Italy.

History books can be as slanted as any other printed media.

---

True but see how you were able to prove what was correct and what was incorrect in a history book. You can't do that with the bible. With the bible a person either thinks believes or has faith it is true or a person thinks believes or has faith it is not true. I want someone to lead us with knowledge he/she knows is true not what he/she thinks believes or has faith it is true.

Hello again:

ALL of you MADE my point. And, some of you STILL missed it...

I used to think history was a compilation of facts. It isn't. It's a compilation of facts viewed through the writers perception. Therefore, it takes a wide variety of reading materials for one to be able to ascertain a certain truth.

The point some of you miss, is that you think because one reads a book about FDR, for example, that it somehow reveals something about the reader. What it reveals to me, is that the reader is well read - not that he's a prisoner to his readings...

Speaking of being a prisoner to your readings, if you read ONE book on history, you'll come away with a skewed view. I believe the dufus read the Sharansky book, and no others. I believe Gal read the history book supplied by his church.

excon

Again you are wrong about President Bush's reading and are distorting what I wrote. In no way did I suggest that is the only book he has read anymore than you think a couple of FDR books is all that Obama has read.
If you are going to give credit to Obama for reading history books then the same credit and consideration should be given to this President .
I did not take the time to list all the books in the many MSM articles I searched yesterday but it was a substantial reading list.