I watched the video. I would have expected someone working at the polling place to tell those two Black Panthers to leave the premises. Very odd indeed. I certainly would have thought twice before walking past those two guys. They didn't belong there.
However, I would have liked the camera man to have filmed them from a distance, instead of approaching them directly, to see if the actual voters were being intimidated.
Taxation, Monarchy, Historic Events, Politics, Kitchen Sinks
-
barnabas1969
- Posts: 5738
- Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 7:23 pm
- Location: Titusville, Florida, USA
-
HTPC Specs:
-
kingwr
- Posts: 417
- Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 1:48 am
- Location:
-
HTPC Specs:
Man, you sure have the whole 2000 vote thing wrong. Do you even know what happened? How about a little reading. Bush's "buddies" in the SC didn't "intervene." The Supreme Court took up the case in the course of appeals from a number of cases pending in both State and Federal courts. Upon seeing the closeness of the race after the mandated machine recount, Gore requested a manual recount in four heavily Democrat counties. Everyone knows that a manual recount will result in more votes for both candidates, and usually in the same proportion as the actual votes. By requesting manual recounts in four Democrat stronghold counties, Gore was trying to stack the deck. The Secretary of State of Florida, Catherine Harris, acted under her legal authority to certify the election results (including one county's manual recount) and lay down standards by which the other three counties could later amend their returns. Gore sued the Florida Secretary of State, Bush sued Gore, Bush sued the State of Florida, and chaos ensued. It is a shame that the decision came down on 5 to 4 lines (except for the Equal Protection Clause issue, that was 7 to 2). However, it is completely disingenuous to characterize this as "Bush's buddies on the Supreme Court intervened." Also, Gore won the "final recount" only if you look at the manual recounts from the 4 Democrat stronghold counties requested by Gore. A statewide manual recount never took place, and later manual recounts by various organizations under the FOIA shows Bush likely winning a statewide manual recount.I'm not blaming Bush for the legal battle... just Bush's buddies in the Supreme Court for intervening. SCOTUS had no business dictating the recount in the state of Florida. I would have been OK with a statewide recount. Just in case you didn't already know... Gore won the final recount... but it didn't matter because the Supreme Court ordered it to stop.
I am just flabbergasted how liberals can speak about these issues with such authority when you show little real insight into what actually happened.
-
mark1234
- Posts: 872
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 9:49 pm
- Location: UK
-
HTPC Specs:
Changing the topic somewhat, did anyone know that yesterday was the 200th anniversary of the declaration of the War of 1812? A largely forgotten war on this side of the ocean where the US and Britain fought each other to a score-draw, with British North America (or Canada as some now call it) having the only claim to any small scent of victory.mark1234 wrote:How many Americans (or anyone else for that matter) realise that Liz is also the Head of State and Queen of Canada? Supposedly she likes the place, though I've never asked her.
Highlights of the war would probably be the sacking of Washington DC and some song, which I believe most Americans are aware of, about the Royal Navy blowing several shades of .... out of a US fort.
If only we'd managed to knock the flagpole over... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18481542
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18497113
Windows Media Centre - Abandoned by Microsoft
-
lithium630
- Posts: 633
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 12:00 am
- Location:
-
HTPC Specs:
Ha ha. American history books that I've seen do not categorize the war a draw. 
I image there are a lot of differences in how our common history is taught and I doubt either are accurate.
I image there are a lot of differences in how our common history is taught and I doubt either are accurate.-
mark1234
- Posts: 872
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 9:49 pm
- Location: UK
-
HTPC Specs:
Really? Curious how you think we won.lithium630 wrote:Ha ha. American history books that I've seen do not categorize the war a draw.
Absolutely. The truth is out there...lithium630 wrote:I image there are a lot of differences in how our common history is taught and I doubt either are accurate.
Windows Media Centre - Abandoned by Microsoft
-
makryger
- Posts: 2132
- Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 2:01 pm
- Location: Illinois
-
HTPC Specs:
oh, and @mark, you were lucky to get any pictures of the queen. I was at the jubilee, and they barricaded off anyone who came after 1pm to watch the royal procession!
My Channel Logos XL: Get your Guide looking good! ~~~~ TunerSalad: Increase the 4-tuner limit in 7MC
-
lithium630
- Posts: 633
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 12:00 am
- Location:
-
HTPC Specs:
I choose not to answer that as to not start an international incident.mark1234 wrote: Really? Curious how you think we won.
-
makryger
- Posts: 2132
- Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 2:01 pm
- Location: Illinois
-
HTPC Specs:
I could have sworn that the US lost the war of 1812?...
My Channel Logos XL: Get your Guide looking good! ~~~~ TunerSalad: Increase the 4-tuner limit in 7MC
-
lithium630
- Posts: 633
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 12:00 am
- Location:
-
HTPC Specs:
I was taught in school was that the war of 1812 was a British invasion which the US successfully repelled. I just read up on it quickly. I did not know that the US declared war first. Certainly did appear to be a draw.makryger wrote:I could have sworn that the US lost the war of 1812?...
-
mark1234
- Posts: 872
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 9:49 pm
- Location: UK
-
HTPC Specs:
You were over here for the Jubilee? Cool. Shame you didn't get to see anything. Except crowds.makryger wrote:oh, and @mark, you were lucky to get any pictures of the queen. I was at the jubilee, and they barricaded off anyone who came after 1pm to watch the royal procession!
If you want to live vicariously, I can post one of my pictures, with the Queen about 4 pixels high. Or you can have a close up, but blurry, shot of the Duchess.
Windows Media Centre - Abandoned by Microsoft
-
mark1234
- Posts: 872
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 9:49 pm
- Location: UK
-
HTPC Specs:
I love this thread!lithium630 wrote:I was taught in school was that the war of 1812 was a British invasion which the US successfully repelled. I just read up on it quickly. I did not know that the US declared war first. Certainly did appear to be a draw.makryger wrote:I could have sworn that the US lost the war of 1812?...
Given how close the US, UK & Canada are militarily these days, and have been for a long time, it's easy to forget that as recently as the 1920s and 30s planners from all three countries assumed the next major conflict would be between the US & UK with Canada caught in the middle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Scheme_No._1
Windows Media Centre - Abandoned by Microsoft
-
Danno100
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 2:11 am
- Location: Ontario, Canada
-
HTPC Specs:
It is clear that Canada won the war of 1812. We believe it, and Americans just can't seem to accept that fact! I believe the vast majority of us are proud of our heritage (as are Americans and the British), and wish to remain a sovereign nation....
Read the following:
In a relatively rare admission for an American scholar, a leading U.S. historian who authored a provocative new tome about North American military conflicts states bluntly that Canada won the War of 1812.
Johns Hopkins University professor Eliot Cohen, a senior adviser to former U.S. secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, writes in his just-published book Conquered Into Liberty that, “ultimately, Canada and Canadians won the War of 1812.”
And Cohen acknowledges that, “Americans at the time, and, by and large, since, did not see matters that way.
The book also echoes a key message trumpeted by the federal Conservative government in recent weeks as it unveiled ambitious plans to commemorate the bicentennial of the War of 1812 over the next three years: that the successful fight by British, English- and French-Canadian and First Nations allies to resist would-be American conquerors — at battles such as Queenston Heights in Upper Canada and Chateauguay in Lower Canada — set the stage for the creation of a unified and independent Canada a half-century later.
“If the conquest of (Canada) had not been an American objective when the war began, it surely had become such shortly after it opened,” Cohen argues in the book. “Not only did the colony remain intact: It had acquired heroes, British and French, and a narrative of plucky defense against foreign invasion, that helped carry it to nationhood.”
In an interview with Postmedia News, Cohen observed that, “all countries have to have these myths — not in the sense of falsehoods, but really compelling stories that are, in fact, rooted in some kind of truth, even if they’re not the complete truth.
“And the War of 1812 gives Canada that,” he continued. “It gives you some foundation myths. It gives you Laura Secord. It gives you heroes.”
Cohen, who advised the Bush Administration on geopolitical strategy from 2007 to 2009, said the War of 1812 “was the last point at which the United States thought really seriously about trying to take Canada by force of arms.”
It’s clear, he added, that “there were a lot of senior American leaders who thought the outcome of the war would be the forcible annexation of Canada — thinking, not entirely without reason, that there would be some segment of the (Canadian) population that would welcome that.”
There were, in fact, deep roots for such thinking in the U.S. Rebel forces during the American War of Independence had launched a northward invasion — ultimately unsuccessful — nearly four decades before the War of 1812.
In 1775, a rebel pamphlet distributed among Canadians in present-day Quebec warned that they would be “conquered into liberty” by the invading revolutionaries from the South, an oxymoronic appeal to join in the revolt against British rule, and which Cohen captured in the title of his book as a sentiment which still echoes in contemporary U.S. foreign policy.
Subtitled “Two Centuries of Battles Along the Great Warpath that Made the American Way of War,” the 400-page survey of North American history from 1690 to 1871 contends that the national mindsets of the U.S. and Canada were profoundly and enduringly shaped by struggles over the land and water routes between Montreal and New York City, principally Lake Champlain, Lake George and the Hudson River.
And while Cohen’s book highlights the fact that the U.S. won the principal War of 1812 clash in that crucial corridor — the Battle of Plattsburgh in September 1814 — he concludes that “the nominal causes for which (the Americans) had fought the war had advanced not an iota” by the time a peace treaty had been signed and hostilities ended in early 1815.
U.S. forces “had failed in their objective of conquering Canada,” Cohen writes. “They had suffered humiliating defeats at the hands of numerically inferior enemies; the Royal Navy had driven American commerce from the seas; and American national finance had suffered severely.”
But like Canada, which emerged victorious from the War of 1812 and more aware of itself as a potential nation, the U.S. salvaged a solid — even strengthened — sense of national identity, Cohen argues.
“Some of this has to do with myth, understood as powerful stories that frame a deeper conception of one’s history,” he writes. “They clung to the victorious naval duels of the USS Constitution, the ‘bombs bursting in air’ over Fort McHenry, the fleet action on Lake Erie, the Battle of New Orleans … and — very much — Plattsburgh.”
Even as late as the U.S. Civil War in the 1860s, Cohen said in the interview, a “substantial body of opinion” persisted among American political leaders “that sooner or later, Canadians will decide that they want to join the United States.”
But, added Cohen, even the most ardent annexationists in the U.S. had come to believe by then that the absorption of the Canadian colonies by the United States would only happen “on the initiative of Canadians.”
Read the following:
In a relatively rare admission for an American scholar, a leading U.S. historian who authored a provocative new tome about North American military conflicts states bluntly that Canada won the War of 1812.
Johns Hopkins University professor Eliot Cohen, a senior adviser to former U.S. secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, writes in his just-published book Conquered Into Liberty that, “ultimately, Canada and Canadians won the War of 1812.”
And Cohen acknowledges that, “Americans at the time, and, by and large, since, did not see matters that way.
The book also echoes a key message trumpeted by the federal Conservative government in recent weeks as it unveiled ambitious plans to commemorate the bicentennial of the War of 1812 over the next three years: that the successful fight by British, English- and French-Canadian and First Nations allies to resist would-be American conquerors — at battles such as Queenston Heights in Upper Canada and Chateauguay in Lower Canada — set the stage for the creation of a unified and independent Canada a half-century later.
“If the conquest of (Canada) had not been an American objective when the war began, it surely had become such shortly after it opened,” Cohen argues in the book. “Not only did the colony remain intact: It had acquired heroes, British and French, and a narrative of plucky defense against foreign invasion, that helped carry it to nationhood.”
In an interview with Postmedia News, Cohen observed that, “all countries have to have these myths — not in the sense of falsehoods, but really compelling stories that are, in fact, rooted in some kind of truth, even if they’re not the complete truth.
“And the War of 1812 gives Canada that,” he continued. “It gives you some foundation myths. It gives you Laura Secord. It gives you heroes.”
Cohen, who advised the Bush Administration on geopolitical strategy from 2007 to 2009, said the War of 1812 “was the last point at which the United States thought really seriously about trying to take Canada by force of arms.”
It’s clear, he added, that “there were a lot of senior American leaders who thought the outcome of the war would be the forcible annexation of Canada — thinking, not entirely without reason, that there would be some segment of the (Canadian) population that would welcome that.”
There were, in fact, deep roots for such thinking in the U.S. Rebel forces during the American War of Independence had launched a northward invasion — ultimately unsuccessful — nearly four decades before the War of 1812.
In 1775, a rebel pamphlet distributed among Canadians in present-day Quebec warned that they would be “conquered into liberty” by the invading revolutionaries from the South, an oxymoronic appeal to join in the revolt against British rule, and which Cohen captured in the title of his book as a sentiment which still echoes in contemporary U.S. foreign policy.
Subtitled “Two Centuries of Battles Along the Great Warpath that Made the American Way of War,” the 400-page survey of North American history from 1690 to 1871 contends that the national mindsets of the U.S. and Canada were profoundly and enduringly shaped by struggles over the land and water routes between Montreal and New York City, principally Lake Champlain, Lake George and the Hudson River.
And while Cohen’s book highlights the fact that the U.S. won the principal War of 1812 clash in that crucial corridor — the Battle of Plattsburgh in September 1814 — he concludes that “the nominal causes for which (the Americans) had fought the war had advanced not an iota” by the time a peace treaty had been signed and hostilities ended in early 1815.
U.S. forces “had failed in their objective of conquering Canada,” Cohen writes. “They had suffered humiliating defeats at the hands of numerically inferior enemies; the Royal Navy had driven American commerce from the seas; and American national finance had suffered severely.”
But like Canada, which emerged victorious from the War of 1812 and more aware of itself as a potential nation, the U.S. salvaged a solid — even strengthened — sense of national identity, Cohen argues.
“Some of this has to do with myth, understood as powerful stories that frame a deeper conception of one’s history,” he writes. “They clung to the victorious naval duels of the USS Constitution, the ‘bombs bursting in air’ over Fort McHenry, the fleet action on Lake Erie, the Battle of New Orleans … and — very much — Plattsburgh.”
Even as late as the U.S. Civil War in the 1860s, Cohen said in the interview, a “substantial body of opinion” persisted among American political leaders “that sooner or later, Canadians will decide that they want to join the United States.”
But, added Cohen, even the most ardent annexationists in the U.S. had come to believe by then that the absorption of the Canadian colonies by the United States would only happen “on the initiative of Canadians.”
Home Theater/Automation Enthusiast
-
lithium630
- Posts: 633
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 12:00 am
- Location:
-
HTPC Specs:
In college I took "US History since 1876" specifically to learn about all the wars that were just glazed over in school. Not one war was covered. The entire class was about the industrial revolution. ZZZZZZZ.. Mark, to continue the theme of crazy topics I have a question for you, or any other UK citizens. A while ago talk radio made a big deal about Obama sending back a bust of Churchill. Was that seen as in insult in the UK or is it something that most people were unaware of (or did not care)? Just curious.
-
mark1234
- Posts: 872
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 9:49 pm
- Location: UK
-
HTPC Specs:
Quick quiz on the War of 1812: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18451128
I scored 7/9.
I had to look up the story about the Churchill bust. I think I knew about it at the time but, TBH, doesn't bother me that much. It had only been loaned to Bush a few years earlier. It's not like it had sat in the Oval Office since the 40s. I imagine that every incoming president does some redecorating in the Oval Office and will return/replace various pieces of art. I just see it as part of that.
There is one other possibility why Obama didn't want to see Churchill's face around the place:
I scored 7/9.
I had to look up the story about the Churchill bust. I think I knew about it at the time but, TBH, doesn't bother me that much. It had only been loaned to Bush a few years earlier. It's not like it had sat in the Oval Office since the 40s. I imagine that every incoming president does some redecorating in the Oval Office and will return/replace various pieces of art. I just see it as part of that.
There is one other possibility why Obama didn't want to see Churchill's face around the place:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... itain.htmlIt was during Churchill's second premiership that Britain suppressed Kenya's Mau Mau rebellion. Among Kenyans allegedly tortured by the colonial regime included one Hussein Onyango Obama, the President's grandfather.
Windows Media Centre - Abandoned by Microsoft
-
lithium630
- Posts: 633
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 12:00 am
- Location:
-
HTPC Specs:
That's how it was reported, that Obama saw Churchill as a racist so he returned the bust. Obviously both political sides use every little thing they can to blast their opponents. I was just curious how it was seen there. I'm glad it was not a real issue.
-
mark1234
- Posts: 872
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 9:49 pm
- Location: UK
-
HTPC Specs:
Churchill was a racist. He may have been the right man at the right time in 1940, but if I was to type out the complete list of his failings, I'd need new batteries in my keyboard.
Windows Media Centre - Abandoned by Microsoft
-
mark1234
- Posts: 872
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 9:49 pm
- Location: UK
-
HTPC Specs:
Going back to the Monarchy question, the accounts for the Queen and the Prince of Wales have been released over the last few days:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18673692
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18645331
Meanwhile, HM is in Scotland as part of her Jubilee tour:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-18663842
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18673692
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18645331
Meanwhile, HM is in Scotland as part of her Jubilee tour:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-18663842
Windows Media Centre - Abandoned by Microsoft
-
lithium630
- Posts: 633
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 12:00 am
- Location:
-
HTPC Specs:
