Pixies Place Forums - So what has America learned?

PantyFanatic

02-18-2006, 06:40 PM

"We can probably learn just as much - or maybe even more - by looking at the mistakes rather than looking at why they were great,"

Most of us have looked back at mistakes in our lives and like to think we’ve learned something from the.

So what has America learned?
Scholars Rate Worst Presidential Errors
http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles?id=n20060218140609990004&cid=771

(Interesting approach) ;)

Steph

02-18-2006, 08:17 PM

That poll could be more extensive.

jbh3

02-18-2006, 08:35 PM

"Scholars" have too much time on their hands.

Oldfart

02-18-2006, 10:23 PM

This is a classic example of people looking at history through filters of modern thought and morality.

You need to know why someone has committed an act or omission for the knowledge of the act

or omission to be more than a dry fact.

The world has learned much from the past, just very little it is willing to use as a moderative guide.

Hey, everybody, I found my soap-box again.

jbh3

02-18-2006, 10:31 PM

"History is merely a list of surprises. It can only prepare us to be surprised yet again"--Kurt Vonnegut

moose

02-19-2006, 08:01 AM

sorry guys but i personal dont think they have learned anything (i'm not bagging anyone, just in general)

Lilith

02-19-2006, 08:51 AM

Rarely does someone learn from someones else's mistakes, they have to make them for themselves. Might be why "history repeats itself".

jseal

02-19-2006, 01:08 PM

PantyFanatic,

If Americans can learn that they are as fallible as everyone else, they will have learned as much as can be expected.

Jax

02-19-2006, 03:09 PM

Interesting thought about why history repeats itself - in that people are unable to learn from each others mistakes.

The only thing I'll tell you is that most decisions or actions are relevent to the time (obviously) and hindsight is 20/20. Hard to go back and really argue to vehemently on most items on that list.

LixyChick

02-20-2006, 09:59 AM

I gotta tell ya...I don't know one single person who was affected by Bill Clinton's "personal" oval office antics! I still say that was between him and his wife!

I like/admire a man who can think with both sides of his brain (ie: get a blow-job and talk political business on the phone at the same time). Makes me imagine what else he can multi-task at! Then again...I'd prefer to be the total focus. Hmmmmmm...lemme rethink this!

Oops! What was the question?

scotzoidman

02-20-2006, 05:49 PM

Saw a bumper sticker yesterday that said, "NOBODY DIED WHEN CLINTON LIED"...that his little blunder in his personal life even makes the top ten is sorta incredible to me...I do have an addition to the historians #1 blunder, in that Buchanon should hardly bear all the blame for the Civil War, he had a lotta help from the four geniuses that preceded him...especially the Fillmoron...
Mainly, tho, I agree that the only thing we learn from History is that we don't learn anything from History...

Steph

02-20-2006, 07:51 PM

I gotta tell ya...I don't know one single person who was affected by Bill Clinton's "personal" oval office antics! I still say that was between him and his wife!

People brought it up enough, though!

rabbit

03-04-2006, 09:54 PM

I gotta tell ya...I don't know one single person who was affected by Bill Clinton's "personal" oval office antics! I still say that was between him and his wife!

Lixy, it was betwen him and his wife up to the point where he lied under oath. He broke the law. His actions affected all of us because the president is the Executive lawmaker. End of story.

Interesting list, though I am not sure I agree with the order & reasoning.

1) There was nothing Buchanan could have done to stop the civil war. Slavery was a cancer that only a violent act was going to remedy. No amount of diplomacy was going to change the hearts and minds of the Southern people.

2) A. Johnson's actions carried little weight at the time and had little true impact on the nation. The Reconstructionists ran government after Lincoln was killed.

3) L. Johnson's mistake was in not prosecuting the war fully once he decided on it. If you are going to make war, then MAKE WAR. Otherwise, don't do it.

4) I do not see how Wilson's refusal to compromise would have prevented the rise of Nazi Germany or of Fascist Italy. Neville Chamberlain tried compromise...with disastrous results.

5) My #1. Nixon's acts rocked the very foundation of the government "by the people, for the people".

6) Consider that U.S. ships were being seized by the British and that thousands of American sailors were being conscripted into the Royal Navy...among other things...what real bearing would the avoidance of war had on a young country's fortunes? Remember: give me liberty or give me death.

7) Jefferson's blunder did indeed cause serious damage to the economy.

8) JFK's error was in not backing the invasion as he promised. Again, if you are going to make war, then MAKE WAR. Otherwise, don't do it.

9) I've never understood the merits of our actions in Nicaragua.

10) It will be interesting to see how history remembers Bill Clinton 25 years from now. His story isn't finished.

PantyFanatic

03-04-2006, 10:13 PM

Interesting thoughts Rabbit. ;)

I have to ponder the ones I didn't see from the same prospective. :confused:

scotzoidman

03-08-2006, 02:33 AM

Lixy, it was betwen him and his wife up to the point where he lied under oath. He broke the law. His actions affected all of us because the president is the Executive lawmaker. End of story.
.
Not quite the end...it begs the question, how did a sitting president end up in a situation where he was forced to answer questions about his personal life? The answer: he was hounded by political enemies who would not stop digging in the dirt till they found something they could nail his ass with...remember, the Special Prosecutor started out looking into the Whitewater thing, & how his scope broadened from a botched investment scheme in which the principal targets actually LOST money to encompass the whereabouts of the First Penis is still a mystery to me...& I watched it happen!

dicksbro

03-08-2006, 04:21 AM

Not quite the end...it begs the question, how did a sitting president end up in a situation where he was forced to answer questions about his personal life? The answer: he was hounded by political enemies who would not stop digging in the dirt till they found something they could nail his ass with...remember, the Special Prosecutor started out looking into the Whitewater thing, & how his scope broadened from a botched investment scheme in which the principal targets actually LOST money to encompass the whereabouts of the First Penis is still a mystery to me...& I watched it happen!

Isn't every politician hounded by his political enemies? :confused:

I thought that was politics. :)

PantyFanatic

03-08-2006, 09:21 AM

...He broke the law. His actions affected all of us because the president is the Executive lawmaker. End of story....
I think you are right Rabbit. I always thought that the President was the head executive charged with carrying out the directives and laws made by the congress. It seems our executive decides what he wants to do and how he’ll do it and then sends it to congress to make it permanent law. Any international laws mad in Geneva or any place else can just be ignored and substituted to suite the purpose of the one view. (or the view of the one purpose)

It will make the job easier because we can do away with any standards or ideals of how citizens and all other people need to be treated. Procedures can decided first, then made into law. I see how this is going to make things run much smoother and faster. I don’t know how I was so confused.

Thanks for straightening me out on this.

osuche

03-08-2006, 11:37 AM

It seems our executive decides what he wants to do and how he’ll do it and then sends it to congress to make it permanent law. Any international laws mad in Geneva or any place else can just be ignored and substituted to suite the purpose of the one view. (or the view of the one purpose)

Have you been reading the GW Bush primer for how to run the government?

And is it written in crayon like I guessed? :D

Oldfart

03-08-2006, 12:50 PM

PantyFanatic

03-08-2006, 03:26 PM

.....When the arrogance of the heirarchy reaches the levels where no other law matters, .....
Talk about carefully preparing the soil for a crop.
Throughout history this has been the predecessor of RADICAL change. :(

jbh3

03-08-2006, 03:39 PM

And have you noticed the latest trend?

A Western Australian man who has never been to the USA has had an extradition warrant sworn

against him for an alleged copyright matter.

When the arrogance of the heirarchy reaches the levels where no other law matters, it is small

wonder that evil men can talk kids into becoming human torpedoes against "the great satan".

Talk about carefully preparing the soil for a crop.

OF, if a man can't be extradited for an alleged copyright matter,then a man can't be extradited for running a child pornography site from Russia.

I know ,they are 180 degrees apart,but they fall under the same extradition laws.I would not want to determine where to draw the line between these two.It is very fuzzy and apparently broadly interpreted in our courts.
It is not as distinct as the 38th parallel and probably never will be.

As most lawyers are wont to do, they use the "laws on the books" to the best of their ability.That's why they should "kill all the lawyers" ;)

PantyFanatic

03-08-2006, 04:57 PM

OF, if a man can't be extradited for an alleged copyright matter,then a man can't be extradited for running a child pornography site from Russia.
If these are international matters, shouldn't an international authority decide them?

Scarecrow

03-08-2006, 05:46 PM

If these are international matters, shouldn't an international authority decide them?

Is there one???

Steph

03-08-2006, 07:45 PM

A Western Australian man who has never been to the USA has had an extradition warrant sworn against him for an alleged copyright matter.

This one has scared/saddened/outraged a few people today:

Bush Declares War On Freedom Of The Press

'Using many of the questionable surveillance and monitoring techniques that brought both questions and criticism to his administration, President George W. Bush has launched a war against reporters who write stories unfavorable to his actions and is planning to prosecute journalists to make examples of them in his "war on terrorism."

'Bush recently directed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to use "whatever means at your disposal" to wiretap, follow, harass and investigate journalists who have published stories about the administration's illegal use of warrantless wiretaps, use of faulty intelligence and anything else he deems "detrimental to the war on terror."

More at: http://www.disinfo.com/site/displayarticle15406.html

Canada's far from perfect on that front, too. The police have seized notes from reporters who have reported heavily on the Hell's Angels.

Oldfart

03-08-2006, 09:38 PM

The point I was making was that a country's law should have no sway beyond their borders. It says that their law is stronger or more valid than the law of the other land.

Child porn is an excellent example of this, as this is something abhorrent to us and easy to bend moral outrage into legal superiority.

I asked in another thread about a boy and a 17 year old girl having sex. If the girl was American, the boy a Brit, the sex consentual, all on an Australian beach, under this mindset the boy is liable to be charged with statuatory rape.

This is called extra-territoriality. Israel is good at pulling it too.

PantyFanatic

03-08-2006, 09:56 PM

Is there one???
From what I can see, it's whoever has the biggest gun and pulls the triger first. :(

jbh3

03-08-2006, 10:04 PM

From what I can see, it's whoever has the biggest gun and pulls the triger first. :(

I have to disagree here, it's whoever sacrifices the most lives for freedom.

Steph

03-08-2006, 10:05 PM

The point I was making was that a country's law should have no sway beyond their borders. It says that their law is stronger or more valid than the law of the other land.

I didn't mean to paraphrase . . . that quote made me think of posts about freedom of the press. Extradition is another ball of wax & has been a sore point of contention here, too.

Oldfart

03-08-2006, 10:08 PM

Pax Americana?

jseal

03-08-2006, 10:14 PM

The notion of “international law” is very limited. What may appear as an international law is often the concurrent application of the national laws of those sovereign nations which have ratified the same treaty. Here in the States, the Senate ratifies treaties.

Take, for example, the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html). If the copyrighted material was published in the U.S. then, as both Australia and the U.S. are signatories (http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=15), an arrest warrant may be issued for an Australian accused of violating an American’s copyright. (Article 5, Rights Guaranteed:1. and 2. Outside the country of origin; 3. In the country of origin; 4. “Country of origin” (http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P109_16834))

Whether the accused had never traveled outside Australia would not matter.

PantyFanatic

03-08-2006, 10:14 PM

I have to disagree here, it's whoever sacrifices the most lives for freedom.
Are you telling me that the body count determines who is free? I REALLY don’t get the correlation there. :confused:

With the current situation, that would make the Iraqis the freest people.

jbh3

03-08-2006, 10:17 PM

Cute phrase, but The American Empire may just save your ass one day.

Oldfart

03-08-2006, 10:21 PM

That's almost, but not quite the point, and a classic example of what we were talking about.

If America cannot accept the social, racial and legal diversity of the outside world, we are no better off than in Roman times. So what has America learned?

jbh3

03-08-2006, 10:26 PM

Are you telling me that the body count determines who is free? I REALLY don’t get the correlation there. :confused:

With the current situation, that would make the Iraqis the freest people.

Are you telling me that the biggest gun and fastest trigger finger determines who is free?Of course you're not! But it seems our Commander In Chief thinks so.Does body count determine who is the International Authority,apparently he thinks this is the case too since he repeatedly lines up 18-22 year old soldiers in the line of fire around the world.

jbh3

03-08-2006, 10:27 PM

jseal

03-08-2006, 10:28 PM

The WTO and Berne Convention are both examples of treaty organizations which member staes voluntarily join. Nations which are not treaty members of the organizations are not bound by the rules, are they?

Oldfart

03-08-2006, 10:57 PM

You say "the rules" like it's a religious truth.

The correct term is "our rules".

Other rules have validity, even if we don't like them.

PantyFanatic

03-08-2006, 11:14 PM

jbh3

03-08-2006, 11:26 PM

I am totally lost here jbh3. The question to me (http://www.pixies-place.com:81/forums/showpost.php?p=1154721&postcount=23) and my respose (http://www.pixies-place.com:81/forums/showpost.php?p=1154867&postcount=26) was about international authority. Freedom and sacrificed lives (http://www.pixies-place.com:81/forums/showpost.php?p=1154892&postcount=27) were your contribution. I still don’t get it (http://www.pixies-place.com:81/forums/showpost.php?p=1154920&postcount=31). What did I miss? :confused:

Nothing to get really...I was simply trying to convey two excuses(yours and mine)to annoint us the International Authority that our President might think are valid .

I think I'll end my political contribution to this forum with this post.It seems to make enemies of friends since the ability to discuss in real time,respond in a quick manner,study facial and hand expressions is not achievable.I'm outa here to go play with the ladies :)

PantyFanatic

03-09-2006, 12:08 AM

You better go jbh3. You are totally fucked up now. :rolleyes: You used "our President" and "think" in the same sentence.

;)

scotzoidman

03-09-2006, 12:13 AM

Actually, the words he used were, "our President might think"...which might happen someday, but I'm not holding my breath...

jseal

03-09-2006, 06:07 AM

..You say "the rules" like it's a religious truth...
Oldfart,

No sir. The rules are the legally binding constraints upon the signatory nations. If you follow the links, you'll see what both Australia and the U.S. agreed to when each ratified the Berne Convention. The same holds true for the WTO.

Oldfart

03-09-2006, 11:28 AM

As I said, "our" not "the".

Enough of this, who's flashing their tits at the moment?

God I hope that's not Scotz.

PantyFanatic

03-09-2006, 11:59 AM

Here! Here! :D Let's move on to something meaningful and silky. :p

wyndhy

03-09-2006, 12:26 PM

i have damp cotton panties and no-bra...does that help?
:D

Oldfart

03-09-2006, 12:38 PM

Immensely.

Now if we can get two in damp cotton pants and no bra, that's a coincidence.

If we can get three, well looks like we've got ourselves a convoy.

jseal

03-09-2006, 01:58 PM

... I think I'll end my political contribution to this forum with this post.It seems to make enemies of friends since the ability to discuss in real time,respond in a quick manner,study facial and hand expressions is not achievable...)
jbh3,

A valid criticism sir. Also, the confidence that some behaviors carry little, if any, penalty, often changes the nature of these conversations.

PantyFanatic

03-09-2006, 02:11 PM

i have damp cotton panties and no-bra...does that help?
:D
Does chocolate help strawberries? *SLURP*

:p :D :p

jbh3

03-09-2006, 02:33 PM

i have damp cotton panties and no-bra...does that help?
:D

I wasted all that time and energy on politics while wyndhy was across the room in damp panties and no bra!
I'm ashamed of myself and deserve to be SPANKED!!! ;)

wyndhy

03-09-2006, 02:47 PM

^^^i'll leave the spankings to lil ... this way i can observe how a true master does it. ;)

Does chocolate help strawberries? *SLURP*

actually, i prefer my strawberries covered in thick, sweet cream. :p:D

PantyFanatic

03-09-2006, 03:34 PM

....actually, i prefer my strawberries covered in thick, sweet cream. :p:D
I like your 'strawberry' covered in thick, sweet cream too. *SLURP*

:p :D :p

WildIrish

03-09-2006, 04:46 PM

I've learned that the one thing we can all agree upon is that wyndhy's damp panties can unite us.

wyndhy

03-09-2006, 06:09 PM

as JFK said ... ask not what pixies can do for you, but what you can do for pixies. :D

speaking of fitzgeralds ... bonjour!
:p:D

rabbit

03-09-2006, 07:41 PM

Not quite the end...it begs the question, how did a sitting president end up in a situation where he was forced to answer questions about his personal life? The answer: he was hounded by political enemies who would not stop digging in the dirt till they found something they could nail his ass with...remember, the Special Prosecutor started out looking into the Whitewater thing, & how his scope broadened from a botched investment scheme in which the principal targets actually LOST money to encompass the whereabouts of the First Penis is still a mystery to me...& I watched it happen!

Scotz, how he got into that situation is really irrelevant. He was under oath and he committed perjury. Just because a bunch of politicians dug up crap on him (which happens to almost ALL politicians) doesn't give him or any other citizen the right to lie under sworn testimony. Clinton will forever be on the wrong side of that issue, in my opinion, because he broke the law.

rabbit

03-09-2006, 07:44 PM

I think you are right Rabbit. I always thought that the President was the head executive charged with carrying out the directives and laws made by the congress. It seems our executive decides what he wants to do and how he’ll do it and then sends it to congress to make it permanent law. Any international laws mad in Geneva or any place else can just be ignored and substituted to suite the purpose of the one view. (or the view of the one purpose)

It will make the job easier because we can do away with any standards or ideals of how citizens and all other people need to be treated. Procedures can decided first, then made into law. I see how this is going to make things run much smoother and faster. I don’t know how I was so confused.

Thanks for straightening me out on this.

C'mon now, PF...you know the President doesn't unilaterally make laws. Congress makes laws. POTUS signs them into law. Patriot Act, as controversial as it is, can't be a law unless Congress votes to make it so.

rabbit

03-09-2006, 07:49 PM

rabbit

03-09-2006, 07:53 PM

If these are international matters, shouldn't an international authority decide them?

So you think an international court should decide whether or not Neil Entwistle should face murder charges for killing his wife in the U.S. and then fleeing to the U.K.?

PantyFanatic

03-09-2006, 10:00 PM

So you think an international court should decide whether or not Neil Entwistle should face murder charges for killing his wife in the U.S. and then fleeing to the U.K.?
I’m not familiar with the person or the case, but I would first ask if he was a US or British citizen. If a crime was committed in one country and the accused was a citizen, at home, in another country, I want to know what agreements the countries have for such issues. If there is no consensus between the governments, then an international court should make a judgment to IT’S STANDARDS, based on the information provided by the two governments. Neither that international court, or any other government, should have enforcement rights of IT’S VERDICT and sentence until the person was given over by an authority within it’s jurisdiction.

All this hypothesizing is not really a concern though. Your illustration sounded to me like a crime against another person. That will never have the priority of $$$ matters or an offence against a ‘system’. You and I and our families are utterly meaningless in such matters.