H2O MAN
 
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 07:54 am


Read all about it!

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51FT9WT9U3L._SL500_AA240_.jpg
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 3 • Views: 4,796 • Replies: 70

 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  2  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 07:55 am
@H2O MAN,
googling for insulting book titles again? Because it's not possible you read it....you're not smart enough...
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 07:57 am
@Bi-Polar Bear,
Happy New Year B-PB!
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 08:02 am
@H2O MAN,
Could you kindly tell us what one of the lies is H2O?

It seems the author creates 48 straw arguments and then knocks them down. I am curious which of his supposed historical inaccuracies you were taught, H2O. Please inform us and where you learned it and from what text book.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 08:34 am
Parados is absolutely correct about the straw man nature of this joker's claims. That is one of the most bullshit "interviews" i've ever seen. The "interviewer" is merely setting 'em up for this clown to knock down. This thread deserves the conservative whiner tag.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 12:01 pm


The dumbmasses (liberal whiners) hate to deal with facts, truth and logic... it ruins their fake utopia.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 12:13 pm
@H2O MAN,
Quote:
I am curious which of his supposed historical inaccuracies you were taught, H2O. Please inform us and where you learned it and from what text book.

I asked for specifics to back up the author's lame ass statements and that was your only response?

Here's a simple one H2O. The author states that virtually all the names McCarthy provided were communists and/or spies.
McCarthy claimed to have had 205 names. Please provide evidence of those 205 names on McCarthy's list, then provide evidence to support them all being communists/spies. The simple fact is that McCarthy claimed to have that many names but never provided them to anyone. The author is weaseling by claiming the names McCarthy provided were communists. McCarthy provided a few names of which many had been members of the communist party. Most of those were known prior to McCarthy. There is no evidence to support the claim that all the names on McCarthy's supposed list even existed.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 12:26 pm

If the facts don't meet the current liberal agenda they just change them.
The entire left wing agenda is built on a foundation of lies and support by the ignorant.
ebrown p
 
  2  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 12:28 pm
@H2O MAN,
H20Man....

You signature is the best signature I have ever seen! It made me laugh.

H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 12:32 pm
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:

H20Man....

You signature is the best signature I have ever seen! It made me laugh.




Mr. Green Happy New Year ebrown!
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 12:49 pm
@H2O MAN,
So when did liberals rewrite the official congressional hearings?

The simple fact is that McCarthy looked to further himself by declaring a red scare that ultimately didn't exist. I suggest you look at the McCarthy/Army hearings. There is no rewrite by "liberals." There is testimony about how McCarthy and Cohn threatened to destroy the Army simply because a staff member was drafted and was going to be sent overseas. McCarthy may have started with good intentions but by the time he was censored by the Senate he had overstepped all bounds of decency. People at the time thought it. The Senate thought it when they censored him. It is hardly a liberal rewrite.

This is McCarthy in the Army hearings
Quote:
Mr. Jenkins, in answer to your question, let me say it is right here with us now. Unless we make sure that there is no infiltration of our Government, then just as certain as you sit there, in the period of our lives you will see a red world. There is no question about that, Mr. Jenkins
Was he correct? There was no purge of anyone from the Army. Is it a "red world" like he declared?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 01:52 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:



Read all about it!

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51FT9WT9U3L._SL500_AA240_.jpg

If they can't get current events right, there is not a snowballs chance they can get history right, H2OMAN!
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  2  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 02:10 pm
Quote:
Schweikart: I examined between 15 to 20 of the top, best-selling college U.S. history textbooks on the market.


Schweikart based his book on a survey of college textbooks. In recent years there have been many books and articles written about inaccuracies in U.S. history textbooks for elementary or secondary schools. The inaccuracies found are equally unfavorable to liberals and conservatives. Most parents are understandably more concerned about school books for younger ages. Schweikart shows his own bias by focusing on college level books only.
wandeljw
 
  2  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 02:21 pm
@wandeljw,
Schweikart's subtitle, "That You Probably Learned in School" is misleading since he only surveyed college textbooks. Most of us studied U.S. history in elementary school or high school only. Those of us who went to college probably skipped history courses unless history was our major.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 02:23 pm
@wandeljw,
There is no bias!

Schweikart opened this can of worms by looking at college text
books, but he has and is looking at text books for all ages.
wandeljw
 
  2  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 02:28 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

There is no bias!

Schweikart opened this can of worms by looking at college text
books, but he has and is looking at text books for all ages.


Does Schweikart list the titles of any standard elementary or high school textbooks?

Previous authors focused solely on elementary or high school textbooks and listed the titles of those books. Their analysis showed inaccuracies equally unfavorable to liberals and conservatives.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 02:29 pm
@wandeljw,
I suppose, wandel, (and I'm sure, your father even knows it better) that in many countries at all time periods some history 'textbooks' were biased.
When someone studies history - that's from college level onwards = becoming an historian - he/she will (finally, actually history teacher at school should teach as well) be able to see such.

(Our profs here sometimes give their teaching manuscripts as 'scripts', but textbooks at college/university level?)
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  3  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 02:33 pm
none of those lies is better than my two favourite conservative lies

iraq has weapons of mass destruction

and

http://politicaldemotivation.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/bush_mission_accomplished.jpg
okie
 
  0  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 02:44 pm
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:

Schweikart based his book on a survey of college textbooks.

Hey, H2OMAN, lies in college books don't count!
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 03:27 pm
@okie,
Let's look at the lies about what is IN the text books.

The list of "lies" he debunks is actually funny at times.

Quote:
John F. Kennedy was killed by LBJ and a secret team to prevent him from getting us out of Vietnam

I am curious what textbo0k made that claim. But I am really curious how that "myth" is promoted by liberals, nutcases on both sides of the political spectrum perhaps, but not liberals.

Quote:
September 11 was not the work of terrorists -- it was a government conspiracy
Another nutcase myth that has nothing to do with liberals or textbooks.

Quote:
Richard Nixon expanded the Vietnam War
That is an interesting "myth". Perhaps you can explain away Nixon's incursion into Cambodia as not being Vietnam but that would be ignoring the realities of the conflict.
 

Related Topics

Pelosi's Poll Numbers Sink - Discussion by H2O MAN
1'St Round KO - Discussion by gungasnake
Hey 'Progressives': Where is Code Pink? - Discussion by A Lone Voice
The impending meltdown - Discussion by gungasnake
The call to exodus - Discussion by gungasnake
Something Died Nov 4, 2008 - Discussion by cjhsa
How Do We Explain An Obama Win? - Discussion by H2O MAN
DeMint to force vote on "fairness" doctrine - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » American History Rewritten
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/22/2019 at 04:03:49