Who's Next on Mt. Rushmore?

So your saying you would in fact support a traitor just because he is president?

 

Hmmmmmmm.

 

Willful support of traitors and perjurers. I'm quite impressed. Wow! Maybe George Bush does have a chance to get his mug on Mt. Rushmore.

 

Probably not. The voting seems to be in favor of Reagan so far.

But, maybe on reflection Bush would be an acceptable alternative, since he is neither a traitor nor a perjurer.
</font>[/QUOTE]I'll wait to see how much soveriegnty we lose in the future from our children being taught to replace our constitution with the UN Charter by the Bush backed UNESCO.

I'll also wait to see how many of our Christian ideals are replaced with the UN Earth Charter that will also be tauaght by the Bush backed UNESCO.

At least Reagan had the good sense to get us out of that un-American institution.

 

Hey, I have a question here.

When this all gets figured out---who volunteers to climb up there and do the work?

(I don't like heights so please don't rely on me to carry tools up and down.)

 

I'll do it. Heights is just another day at the office for me.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves Carpro we haven't had time to see ALL the damage he has done to our constitution and bill of rights yet. So far it isn't looking good for him though.

 

As a democrat I would love to see FDR on Mt. Rushmore, but, believe it or not, I would not object to Reagan either. Every day under the Bush regime makes me appreciate Reagan more and more.

 

Terry,

Did you not say one time that you were not a Democrat, but a Constitutionalist?

Either way, let me say, I would like to recommend a good book to you, speaking of FDR, called the Plot Against America by Phillip Roth. I think you would find the premise rather interesting and it might be rather revealing about how the same people who claim to love FDR today, if they had been alive during the time of FDR, would have been right there in Des Moines cheering on Lindberg's anti-FDR, anti-semitic, anti-freedom, and anti-war rant and would have been the biggest critics of FDR. Interesting huh? They are and still are called isolationists. They were wrong back then, they were wrong during the Reagan Revolution, and they are still wrong today. And surprise, their message hasn't changed very much either: Freedom for me, but not for thee. America First. Forget the Bible and our neighbor as we pass to the other side of the road and ignore the oppression of others.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Without all the foreign entanglments of WW1 it could be said Joseph that Hitler never would have had a reason to start WW2. Then where would you be with no crazy dictator to blame on the "isolationists"?

 

Poncho,

So are you saying the Shoah was America's fault? Another classic ideology of the isolationists: Blame America first when they liberate oppressed peoples. It was our fault Hitler did what he did. That is just classic stupidity.

Joseph Botwinick

 

No Joseph I'm just saying that without the treaty alliance system of that period. One thing wouldn't have been able to lead to another then another until the world war ended with the Versailles Treaty. Without which Hitler would have probably never made it much past the rank of corporal.

"One Thing Led to Another

So then, we have the following remarkable sequence of events that led inexorably to the 'Great War' - a name that had been touted even before the coming of the conflict.

Austria-Hungary, unsatisfied with Serbia's response to her ultimatum (which in the event was almost entirely placatory: however her jibbing over a couple of minor clauses gave Austria-Hungary her sought-after cue) declared war on Serbia on 28 July 1914.


Russia, bound by treaty to Serbia, announced mobilisation of its vast army in her defence, a slow process that would take around six weeks to complete.


Germany, allied to Austria-Hungary by treaty, viewed the Russian mobilisation as an act of war against Austria-Hungary, and after scant warning declared war on Russia on 1 August.


France, bound by treaty to Russia, found itself at war against Germany and, by extension, on Austria-Hungary following a German declaration on 3 August. Germany was swift in invading neutral Belgium so as to reach Paris by the shortest possible route.


Britain, allied to France by a more loosely worded treaty which placed a "moral obligation" upon her to defend France, declared war against Germany on 4 August. Her reason for entering the conflict lay in another direction: she was obligated to defend neutral Belgium by the terms of a 75-year old treaty.

With Germany's invasion of Belgium on 4 August, and the Belgian King's appeal to Britain for assistance, Britain committed herself to Belgium's defence later that day. Like France, she was by extension also at war with Austria-Hungary.


With Britain's entry into the war, her colonies and dominions abroad variously offered military and financial assistance, and included Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa.


United States President Woodrow Wilson declared a U.S. policy of absolute neutrality, an official stance that would last until 1917 when Germany's policy of unrestricted submarine warfare - which seriously threatened America's commercial shipping (which was in any event almost entirely directed towards the Allies led by Britain and France) - forced the U.S. to finally enter the war on 6 April 1917.


Japan, honouring a military agreement with Britain, declared war on Germany on 23 August 1914. Two days later Austria-Hungary responded by declaring war on Japan.


Italy, although allied to both Germany and Austria-Hungary, was able to avoid entering the fray by citing a clause enabling it to evade its obligations to both.

In short, Italy was committed to defend Germany and Austria-Hungary only in the event of a 'defensive' war; arguing that their actions were 'offensive' she declared instead a policy of neutrality. The following year, in May 1915, she finally joined the conflict by siding with the Allies against her two former allies".

SOURCE

The treaty alliance system was more in line with one country covering another countries behind. What does that have to do with freeing oppressed people? Wilson tried to soften the terms of the treaty but the allies wanted to punish Germany to the hilt. "To the victor goes the spoils". Which was one of the big reasons Germany followed Hitler into WW2. If I'm not mistaken.

Anyways. I think John Wayne should get at least honorable mention on Mt. Rushmore.

 

We're getting off track here, but due to the discussions being reasonably "intelligent" (compared to some other threads I moderate) continue on and enjoy. Just try to follow the board rules and at least mention Mt. Rushmore. Deal?

 

Based on what I've been seeing on the news lately. The next candidate for Mt. Rushmore will be for Wal-Mart to buy it and level it making room for a new Super-Center.

 

Maybe Wal-Mart would just settle for putting Sam up there instead of getting rid of it and believe me, if its not him it could be Ronald McDonald. (After all, who has really had the most impact on the USA?)

 

Yes, and don't think Donald Trump won't try to BUY his way on there! I can see it now.

"TRUMP'S Mt Rushmore"

 

I did I did. and thank you from us reasonably "intelligent" discussioners.