Texas wants to rewrite the US History books

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I totally agree with cutting the military budget and keeping that money at home. When you have so many social inequities and programs in desperate need of funding, you have to wonder if having a monster military budget is really the best use of our money.

Well we don't live in fear of another country invading us. I don't have a problem with military spending because it keeps us safe but I do agree that we could make cuts in the programs. Remember alot of that money is used on technology that helps save lives when we are at war.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

You mean like a lockbox?

lol

That would do but both parties have waisted all that money over the years. If I did what the goverment has done with our SS money I would be in jail. What the goverment has done with SS money is the same thing Madoff did with investors money but the goverment is doing it with us knowledge and they still get away with it.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

So where would your savings in to?

I'd put my money in my own coffers, not the governments.

[Bushead]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well we don't live in fear of another country invading us. I don't have a problem with military spending because it keeps us safe but I do agree that we could make cuts in the programs. Remember alot of that money is used on technology that helps save lives when we are at war.

I always feel like military spending is a double edge sword. So many new technology development comes from it and it does keep us safe, but we have so many troops all over the world.

I feel like we could make some cuts with out endangering our troops if we didn't have so many bases around the entire world.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Read what I said and a lot does not mean all. We can never make everyone like us no matter what we do. We allready spend more then any other country around the world helping poor countries. If we reduce our spending on the military then lets at least keep the money here at home. Last time I check we are running in the red. By the way whats wrong with having the strongest military in the world?

Fine. Keep the money at home. My point was that there are things that we do to make people dislike us and there are things that we can do to make others like us more.

I don't have a problem with having a strong military per se, I have problems with the overkill. We could cut our enormous military budget in half and still far outspend, and thus be stronger than, any other country. There are so many other things that we can do with that money.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

I'd put my money in my own coffers, not the governments.

In this hypthetical you are the gov't, where are you allocating those savings to?

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

In this hypthetical you are the gov't, where are you allocating those savings to?

You realize that my version of the government is 3/4 less than it is now?

I'd cut:

The National Guard
The Department of Education
All of the Alphabet spy agencies
All subsidies
All foreign aid

I'd sell off Fannie, Freddie, and GM
I'd nationalize the Federal Reserve

How much money is that?

If I needed any more money, I'd make Congress pay their back taxes. While I'm at it, I'd drug test them and give them random breathalizers too. Just to eff with em.

[budw38]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Good point, I do think there are probably a few countries and group that use the whole "Israel" thing as a shield. I also think that a lot of countries use the whole "hate the U.S." as a way to get support in their area and whatnot (i.e. Chaves in Venezuela).

Well it is sometimes a good idea to go back in history and see past mistakes, so that we don't repeat them. Although a lot of countries are not good at that. Personally I think there needs to be a balance, you need to remember the good things your country has done and acknowledge them, but as I said, you also need to question the bad actions. Unfortunately, we live in a society where both sides of the political spectrum like to point out just the negatives.

Nice posts Ruhskins and Firstdown .

[budw38]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well we don't live in fear of another country invading us. I don't have a problem with military spending because it keeps us safe but I do agree that we could make cuts in the programs. Remember alot of that money is used on technology that helps save lives when we are at war.

True , and much of that Technology is used to help make cars safer as well as more energy efficient appliances,auto's homes ect.

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

You realize that my version of the government is 3/4 less than it is now?

I'd cut:

The National Guard
The Department of Education
All of the Alphabet spy agencies
All subsidies
All foreign aid

I'd sell off Fannie, Freddie, and GM
I'd nationalize the Federal Reserve

How much money is that?

If I needed any more money, I'd make Congress pay their back taxes. While I'm at it, I'd drug test them and give them random breathalizers too. Just to eff with em.

I like the way you think, sir.

[GusFrerotte]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well we don't live in fear of another country invading us. I don't have a problem with military spending because it keeps us safe but I do agree that we could make cuts in the programs. Remember alot of that money is used on technology that helps save lives when we are at war.

Dude name me a war where our interests were truly at stake? And by that I mean interests of the nation as a whole, not the moneyed elites.


American Revolution The Big Break from England.

War of 1812 Never would have happened if we hadn't invaded Canada.

Spanish American War First war started under a false pretext(USS Maine was mined by the Spanish) later found out to that the explosion was caused because one of the powder rooms was next to the boiler, but we get the Phillipines and Cuba out of the deal.

World War I The war where Western Civ blew its collective brains out. Had nothing to do with the United States. A bunch of jealous cousins use a spat between the Hapsburgs and Serbia to jockey to redraw boundaries of their respective empires and set the stage for both facism and communism.

World War II The only war where our nation was truly attacked and face a true double pronged threat to its liberty and security, but would have never happened if we didn't butt into World War I.

Korea Commies trying to unite Korea under one banner, but it was set up mostly by American naivete of Stalin's intentions and Dean Acheson's omission of S Korea from the newly formed Pacific Defense Perimeter at the beginning of the Cold War. The North took this as a sign that we didn't care so they invaded with Russian/Chinese help. 3 years later we have over 25,000 dead and many more wounded, and the treaty line was at the 38th parallel, right where the border was before it all started. All could have been avoided if Acheson would have said touch S Korea and we will kick your ass!!

Vietnam Civil war like Korea, where many signed up with the commies, who were the best organized, and had a plan to unify Vietnam. S Vietnam was corrupt and the nation falling wouldn't have really impacted us at all. Most of SE Asia fell anyway(except Thailand) and we weren't screwed at all. 58,000 dead for a 8 year war though. A total waste


Gulf War I Ambassador April Glaspie tells Saddam that we don't care about intra Arab squabbling when he asks her point blank what the US would do if he took the N Kuwaiti oilfields by force, as his cash strapped nation needed revenue and the Kuwaitis were slant drilling into Iraq. Biggest setup in modern history. Saddam is of course demonized, since he is a brutal dictator(who cares we had no problem with him being a sadistic pig from 1978-1990 as he was our boy against the crazies in Iran)

Gulf War II Biggest waste of national treasure and blood since World War I in my book. At least in WW II you had bad guys that could attack us. Koreae and Vietnam you could make a valid case about them being wars against communism, but this one was 100% based on lies or exaggerations.

Afghanistan Supposedly was all about nailing the Taliban and bin Laden, but not sure we needed to trash the country. But of course, as in Iraq it quickly turned into another joke of nation building.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Buster

They're teaching some legitimate history that is being whitewashed from most textbooks, I see no issue with it.

Lately, the education system has been pushing the studies of minority cultures, liberalism and completely ignoring anything that the teachers' unions and very liberal teachers do not agree with, both at the high school and secondary levels. They're going to get their liberal points of view in college, on the news, in the media, Hollywood...EVERYWHERE. I've seen textbooks that have a ton on Clinton, but ignore Reagan. They are both relevant and the events that occurred in the 1980s should not be ignored, just as other historical events should not be embellished. I've heard of schools spending more time on George Washington Carver than George Washington. They are attempting to "balance" and "create diversity" when historical facts don't necessarily support an equal relevance. It's not a hateful or bad thing that certain groups or types of people had more importance in the scope of history, it's just how things happened. History should be taught AS IT HAPPENED, no excuses. To artificially place important on certain events and individuals to try to create a racial or idealistic balance for political correctness' sake is to ruin history and teach it improperly. History is to be taught, not adjusted to fit and promote your views or belief system.

Why not teach both sides? It doesn't look like they're eliminating all liberal ideas, they'll be teaching them side-by-side.

Dropping "rap education" can only help the kids. Also, promoting assimilation to the culture rather than the rest of us learning new languages to accommodate immigrants is something that is long overdue.

There is no denying there are unintended consequences from Affirmative Action, welfare, Social Security and other Government Social Programs that have gone off-track due to corruption and waste, or have simply grown too much or outlived their usefulness.

General Stonewall Jackson, aside from his and the Confederacy's stance on slavery WAS one of the greatest military leaders of our history despite being on the perceived "wrong side" of the issue. Just because he was leading the side that we do not agree with in today's society does not mean he was an ineffective General or leader. Also, what is wrong with teaching BOTH Davis' and Lincoln's words and views?

I have to admit that Jefferson DOES need to be included in the teaching of history though. Of course, he is often incorrectly cited along with the nonexistent "Separation of Church and State" that does not actually exist in the founding documents, so perhaps that is part of their reasoning.

If anything, this new curriculum is impressive for being balanced in an education system dominated by those who want to teach only one side...their side.

Here in lies part of the problem. People were so quick to attach the south with slavery. The south did not leave the Union because it wanted slavery and the Union didn't. It left the Union cause Gov. was going to tax the southern states more for their exports vs. the northern states. Davis said it wasn't fair and decided to cecede. Other states followed suit. It was about half way through the war that slavery became the issue. Because the north knew that if they created animosity between the slaves and slave owners the south would have a harder time winning the war.

Also Lincoln didn't free all slaves. He only freed the slaves of the south. Again in order to make it more difficult for the south to win. Northern states kept slavery in effect for several years after.

I honestly could care less about hispanic history. If it has something relevant for us like the Alamo then fine but other wise what do I care about South America? Take a class in college if your interested.

[JoeRedskin]

While this is a whole other kettle of fish, let's be clear, if you believe the Civil War was about anything other than the South's insistence that it had protected property rights in the ownership of humans and rebelled when it appeared that those rights may be infringed upon by the Federal govt., I would assert that you are seriously mistaken.

Southern apologists can point to the economic tariffs or any other side show they may wish to - those could have been negotiated out if the south agreed to restrictions on slavery (not even abolition). Yes, there were other tangled webs involved in the Civil War but, at there core, was the fundamental disagreement over slavery.

Yes. The Emancipation Proclamation was, in fact, an alomost purely political move. Lincoln is on record as saying that if he could save the Union w/out freeing any slaves, he would do so; If he could save it freeing all the slaves, he would do that; if he could save it freeing some but not others, he would do that. Lincoln opposed slavery but held the Union in higher regard than any other political goal.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I honestly could care less about hispanic history. If it has something relevant for us like the Alamo then fine but other wise what do I care about South America? Take a class in college if your interested.

Since it's U.S. history probably the only mentions of South America will be dealing with the migration and the customs brought with them.