NationStates Jolt Archive

George Washington was a maverick in many ways. Not only was he an extremely competent war planner, but he excelled at his task as president. In his farewell address, he stated that we should, for the benefit of the country, avoid forming political countries. Back then, there was a pitched battle between federalists and anti-federalists which centered around executive power. Many parallels can be drawn to the present-day US; Washington's warnings still carry weight, and there are still highly contentious races and debates between the two parties. Although Washington isn't here anymore, following in Washington's footsteps is Lieberman. In a highly partisan two-party climate he had the courage to run as an independent, much like Washington. He puts loyalty to his country above allegiance to a political party, as all of us should be doing. He has cast away the shackles of conforming to party guidelines and is doing what he thinks is in the best interests of America. And he's right. Polls are showing him with a large lead over his liberal contender, Neddy. Whether you agree or disagree with Lieberman, you should look to him as an idol and role model. He has endured much criticism for breaking with the Democratic Party, but he endured it because he had faith that he was taking the correct course of action. And so far, he was been proven correct in his noble ambitions. If only everybody was like him, perhaps politics would function more normally in this country, and fewer extremists would gain power. We need to encourage all politicians to be more like Lieberman and not blinded by party policies; if people thought for themselves, like Lieberman, we'd be stronger as a country and less divided.

I like ole Joe! :)

You know, the scary part is I actually agree with this one...

You know, the scary part is I actually agree with this one...

:eek: Me, too.

The Founding Fathers didn't think there should be political parties, though that turned out to be a nice sentiment but impractical just about from the outset. And of course, Washington was such a hero, there was no way he could have not been elected.

I don't personally care for Lieberman, though. He was a terrible vice-presidential candidate (not that Gore was a whole lot better), and he's become a Democrat In Name Only in recent years. Is that independence? I suppose. Is it admirable? I don't know. I'm just not comfortable with him, I guess. That said, I sort of hope he does win, that'll add a wee bit of amusement to the next Congress no matter what the outcome.

You know, the scary part is I actually agree with this one...

Give him a post or two. He'll turn a completely reasonable position into something extreme. :)

Lieberman did not leave the Democratic Party, he lost the primary election to Ned Lamont. He made a calculated decision that he could retain his seat by drawing from the more conservative citizens of Connecticut since Schlesinger's campaign imploded. He has stated that he will represent Connecticut as a Democrat if elected.

This thread is boring MTAE what happened to your sci fi fantasy world?

Give him a post or two. He'll turn a completely reasonable position into something extreme. :)

No, I won't. While I do hold some positions which fall somewhat outside the mainstream, I am not a stark raving mad conservative. I have many moderate views.

No, I won't. While I do hold some positions which fall somewhat outside the mainstream, I am not a stark raving mad conservative. I have many moderate views.

You have yet to produce any besides this thread.

On another note, would you promote the idolization of Lieberman if he weren't more conservative than some Republicans?

On another note, would you promote the idolization of Lieberman if he weren't more conservative than some Republicans?

Conservative? No, Lierberman is actually quite liberal -- he just has a common-sense view on the war in Iraq. He doesn't feel it would be fair to the Iraqis to leave before the job is completed and leave their country in irredeemable ruin, bloodshed, and chaos. Socially, his policies are very left-wing. In fact, overall, he is much too left-wing for my taste. Nonetheless, I have to applaud his gall and sensibility when he decided to represent the people of Connecticut instead of the DNC or the GOP.

We need to encourage all politicians to be more like Lieberman and not blinded by party policies; if people thought for themselves, like Lieberman, we'd be stronger as a country and less divided.
As a partisan ultra-right winger, you're not exactly doing your part.

As a partisan ultra-right winger, you're not exactly doing your part.

Yes, I am. I believe that my political viewpoints are somewhat to the right of those of the Republican Party. They do not advocate many of my more "obscure" proposals, such as the re-colonization of Arab countries.

George Washington was a maverick in many ways. Not only was he an extremely competent war planner, but he excelled at his task as president. In his farewell address, he stated that we should, for the benefit of the country, avoid forming political countries. Back then, there was a pitched battle between federalists and anti-federalists which centered around executive power. Many parallels can be drawn to the present-day US; Washington's warnings still carry weight, and there are still highly contentious races and debates between the two parties. Although Washington isn't here anymore, following in Washington's footsteps is Lieberman. In a highly partisan two-party climate he had the courage to run as an independent, much like Washington. He puts loyalty to his country above allegiance to a political party, as all of us should be doing. He has cast away the shackles of conforming to party guidelines and is doing what he thinks is in the best interests of America. And he's right. Polls are showing him with a large lead over his liberal contender, Neddy. Whether you agree or disagree with Lieberman, you should look to him as an idol and role model. He has endured much criticism for breaking with the Democratic Party, but he endured it because he had faith that he was taking the correct course of action. And so far, he was been proven correct in his noble ambitions. If only everybody was like him, perhaps politics would function more normally in this country, and fewer extremists would gain power. We need to encourage all politicians to be more like Lieberman and not blinded by party policies; if people thought for themselves, like Lieberman, we'd be stronger as a country and less divided.

Wow, MTAE actually said something sensible. When I saw it was him, I checked the weather channel to see if Hell had frozen over.

I don't know why most American citizens are dying to go live and work in Arab countries.

Yes, I am. I believe that my political viewpoints are somewhat to the right of those of the Republican Party. They do not advocate many of my more "obscure" proposals, such as the re-colonization of Arab countries.
Then why don't you criticise the Republicans more often?

I don't believe the USA ever colonised the Arab countries anyway.

I don't believe the USA ever colonised the Arab countries anyway.

No, the US has not colonized Arab countries. However, the British have. Anyway, that's not the point of this topic.

Meh. I'm uninspired.

Parties are a natural ourgrowth of the democratic system. George Washington was not an independant, he was a member of the Federalist party. Joe Lieberman is just a sore loser and a sellout. The Dems don't need him, and Connecticut sure as hell doesn't need him.

He's failed on:

- Iraq
- Torture
- Health Care
- Homeland Security
- Schaivo

The man is a poor representative in so many ways, and yet he and his supporters continue to whine about partisanship. That's because they have no retort, and, being the established party, stand to gain from silencing dissenting voiced by dubbing them "partisan".

Just wondering, but have you studied history much? An extremely competent war planner? Hardly, George Washington lost nearly every battle he fought in the Revolution. Oh, and how was he an independent? Federalists and Anti-Federalists were not important in his first election because he was elected unanimously, the only president to ever accomplish that in U.S. history. In fact, his opponent and vice president, John Adams knew he wouldn't recieve any votes and so only ran against him to fill the position. It is true that the founding fathers did despise political parties, but then again alot of them thought Democracy was not such a bright idea, and we know how that turned out. Also, George Washington was one of the few presidents that put people with opposing opinions in his cabinet instead of a bunch of yes men. Of course, in his second term he didn't do that as much because, obviously they didn't like what he did, which made him sort of pissed. Oh, and who sayd we're not unified? If we weren't, how could we get a bill that legally allows torture passed? In a Republican dominated Congress? I don't know much about Lieberman, but I just had to get the history corrections out there.

Conservative? No, Lierberman is actually quite liberal -- he just has a common-sense view on the war in Iraq. He doesn't feel it would be fair to the Iraqis to leave before the job is completed and leave their country in irredeemable ruin, bloodshed, and chaos. Socially, his policies are very left-wing. In fact, overall, he is much too left-wing for my taste. Nonetheless, I have to applaud his gall and sensibility when he decided to represent the people of Connecticut instead of the DNC or the GOP.

Once again, he tried to represent the DNC, but the people of Connecticut chose someone else for that honor. He is plucking up conservative votes because the Republican Alan Schlesinger got caught up in a gambling controversy. Lieberman has pledged his loyalty to the DNC and will return to the DNC if elected.

The rest of your post answered my question.

George Washington was not an independant, he was a member of the Federalist party.

No, he most definitely was not. He certainly had a federalist advisor (Hamilton) but he also had an anti-federalist advisor (Jefferson). His political leanings were very moderate and perhaps leaned slightly towards the federalist side, but he was not a member of a political party. It would be quite hypocritical if he warned the US against political parties and yet was a member of one himself. Look at the Wikipedia article on George Washington if you don't believe me.

Washington was not a member of any political party, and hoped that they would not be formed. His closest advisors, however, became divided into two factions, setting the framework for political parties. Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton, who had bold plans to establish the national credit and build a financially powerful nation, formed the basis of the Federalist Party. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Jeffersonian Republicans, strenuously opposed Hamilton's agenda, but lost on every major issue. Washington publicly remained uninvolved in party politics, though his decisions generally favored Hamilton, which eventually prompted Jefferson to leave the administration.

Hardly, George Washington lost nearly every battle he fought in the Revolution.

He had riff-raff troops facing off against a numerically and technologically superior army, not to mention a better-trained one. He had practically no chance, and took the wise course of retreating instead of subjecting his army to complete annihilation. He preserved his troops, and that is a great accomplishment in and of itself. He also planned the daring attacks at Princeton and the crossing of the Delaware, which were critical in raising morale. After the Revolutionary War became a world war, however, Washington fared quite well.

I applaud anyone who will break the party line to vote their consience. That would not be enought to get me to vote for him -Im for an end to the Iraq war- but I found the fallout he endured telling. If the people did not want to vote for him, they were free to not do so, Instead he was violently outed by his party. If his departure from party line was a shock to anyone, they were paying attention only to the letter by his name. Those voters could use a lesson in voting for the candidate before the party.

George Washington was a maverick in many ways. Not only was he an extremely competent war planner,



ROFLMAO!!!!! Oh my god, you are delusional. George Washington? A competent military strategist? Ha!

He lost far more battles than he won, winning only certain battles that happened to result in an eventual win!

The only reason Cornwallis surrendered in the end, was because he was surrounded by the Americans on one side, and the French Navy, which decided to show up, on the other. If the French hadn't been there, he would have left, got more troops, and attacked again.

So no, Washington was a crappy Strategist, who got his shit together at the right time, at the right place.

Good leader though, I must say. Don't get me wrong about that. I'm not dissing the man, I have a high level of respect for him as a man, a president, and a leader. But historians will almost always agree that he is a very bad example of a good General.

He had riff-raff troops facing off against a numerically and technologically superior army, not to mention a better-trained one. He had practically no chance, and took the wise course of retreating instead of subjecting his army to complete annihilation. He preserved his troops, and that is a great accomplishment in and of itself. He also planned the daring attacks at Princeton and the crossing of the Delaware, which were critical in raising morale. After the Revolutionary War became a world war, however, Washington fared quite well.

Well, ya, he did have a bunch of militia, and until von Steuben came along, his core army of about 2000 soldiers ran just as quickly as the minutemen. Battle of Long Island is an excellent example of your idea of cut and run. It is true that he always preserved his army. That pertinacity is what won us the war, because he didn't stop, the British just got tired of fighting us. Heh, I was waiting for someone to mention the Deleware and the battle of Trenton(morale boost that you speak of) where he captured or killed 900 drunk Germans in the middle of the night while they were sleeping. Really brilliant military tactics there. I do admit, it was an excellent overall decision, and if that's what you were getting at, that he was good at keeping morale up and overall strategy, then you're right he was pretty good. But in basic battle strategy, he sucked, to say the least. Just sayin' he wasn't that great, although he was incredibly persistent and courageous, just, kind of... stupid.

He lost far more battles than he won, winning only certain battles that happened to result in an eventual win!

That's because he was facing a better-trained, better-equiped, numerically superior foe. He didn't stand a chance, so his only choice was to retreat strategically and hope that other counrties would come to the aid of the US. He executed this plan perfectly, and kept his army from deserting due to his strength of character. He was a genius.

Feel redundant? Or do you have some other fact to really show something?

That's because he was facing a better-trained, better-equiped, numerically superior foe. He didn't stand a chance, so his only choice was to retreat strategically and hope that other counrties would come to the aid of the US. He executed this plan perfectly, and kept his army from deserting due to his strength of character. He was a genius.

Yes, but he also lost against the Native Americans, and the French numerous times in the French and Indian war. ;)



As to strength of Character, I agree. A point I believe I made in my post, though supposedly he did some absolutely horrible things to some captured British supporters (Civillians). It may just be a rumor, but I've heard that there were some records hidden by his officers of some pretty atrocious deeds.

MTAE, check TGs.

No, he most definitely was not. He certainly had a federalist advisor (Hamilton) but he also had an anti-federalist advisor (Jefferson). His political leanings were very moderate and perhaps leaned slightly towards the federalist side, but he was not a member of a political party. It would be quite hypocritical if he warned the US against political parties and yet was a member of one himself. Look at the Wikipedia article on George Washington if you don't believe me.

And? Look at the thinkquest (a more accurate source, by far, than wiki):

http://library.thinkquest.org/J0110054/presidents.pdf

Warning. PDF. If you don't like waiting a year and a half for Adobe to load, don't click.

Yes, I am. I believe that my political viewpoints are somewhat to the right of those of the Republican Party. They do not advocate many of my more "obscure" proposals, such as the re-colonization of Arab countries.

Oh. My. God.

*turns to others* Did he just say what i think he said??????

And? Look at the thinkquest (a more accurate source, by far, than wiki):

I have a AP US textbook with me that begs to differ, as does Wikipedia. That link is based on a non-ThinkQuest site, if you read the disclaimer at the bottom, so I doubt its veracity.

I have a AP US textbook with me that begs to differ, as does Wikipedia. That link is based on a non-ThinkQuest site, if you read the disclaimer at the bottom, so I doubt its veracity.

Yeah, it ("ThinkQuest") is wrong. GW had two assistants: a Federalist and the opposite, the party of which became... the (democratic) Republicans.

Not to be confused with The Modern Republican party.

MTAE, check TGs.

In response to your question: you'll have to make up your own mind; I'm not going to tell, and if I did, you might not believe me. Listen to the advice of Mrs. Curie.

"Be less curious about people and more curious about ideas."

Also, take into account the following.

"One who is too wise an observer of the business of others, like one who is too curious in observing the labor of bees, will often be stung for his curiosity."

In response to your question: you'll have to make up your own mind; I'm not going to tell, and if I did, you might not believe me. Listen to the advice of Mrs. Curie.

"Be less curious about people and more curious about ideas."

Also, take into account the following.

"One who is too wise an observer of the business of others, like one who is too curious in observing the labor of bees, will often be stung for his curiosity."

ROFLMAO!

Oh, the irony! :D

I have a AP US textbook with me that begs to differ, as does Wikipedia. That link is based on a non-ThinkQuest site, if you read the disclaimer at the bottom, so I doubt its veracity.

Wiki is full of crap. The AP US test relies on a number of false generalizations to make it's point.

Which text? REA is good. Princeton isn't quite so good.

Edit: Checking Edgate.com

Edit2: http://www.americanpresident.org/history/GeorgeWashington/

Proof enough for you?

I have a AP US textbook with me that begs to differ, as does Wikipedia. That link is based on a non-ThinkQuest site, if you read the disclaimer at the bottom, so I doubt its veracity.

What a coincidence, so do I.....

Wiki is full of crap. The AP US test relies on a number of false generalizations to make it's point.

Which text? REA is good. Princeton isn't quite so good.

Edit: Checking Edgate.com

Edit2: http://www.americanpresident.org/history/GeorgeWashington/

Proof enough for you?

Try http://wps.ablongman.com/long_stearns_wcap_4/0,8810,1189431-,00.html
.

Try http://wps.ablongman.com/long_stearns_wcap_4/0,8810,1189431-,00.html
.

Uh... A world history textbook? That really won't help me on this matter.

Uh... A world history textbook? That really won't help me on this matter.

And that concludes the Link Reliance Test. Congrats, you actually took the time too look around.

You get the "I Have No Life" reward. :p jk... or am I? :p :p

The reward: http://www.titane.ca/concordia/dfar251/igod/main.html

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

As for Wa; The unified theory of Wiki is correct.

And that concludes the Link Reliance Test. Congrats, you actually took the time too look around.

You get the "I Have No Life" reward. :p jk... or am I? :p :p

The reward: http://www.titane.ca/concordia/dfar251/igod/main.html

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

As for Wa; The unified theory of Wiki is correct.

Oh my God! :p

God, however, did not resolve the issue either:


Me:
Yo
God:
Can I help you?
Me:
How's it hangin' Dawg?
God:
Fine as far as I know.
Me:
KK, that's cool man
God:
And cool man is KK that.
Me:
Anywho
God:
What time is it there?
Me:
7:34
God:
Are you usually awake at this hour?
Me:
Yes
God:
I like to get up early.
Me:
w/e
God:
What do you have that is ?
Me:
Basically, here's my dillema, big dude. I need to know what party George Washington was a member of
God:
How interesting. Oh there. What kind of knowledge? That's not something I get asked all the time.
Me:
Good, now answer, twit
God:
Thanks for the compliment. Why now? What was the question ?
Me:
What party did George Washington belong to?
God:
What is it to you?
Me:
Um.. I'm having a debate
God:
And? How much did it cost? it.
Me:
Ah... Fuck it... God is dead.
God:
Ah hah. Are you aware that the ALICE server logs and records all conversations? That opinion is very old fashioned.

Oh my God! :p

God, however, did not resolve the issue either:

He wasn't very helpful for me either. Then again, that's nothing new.


Me:
So I did a bad thing.
God:
Ah. Where? What made it bad?
Me:
Everywhere I go. The fact that you said it is bad made it bad.
God:
What do you look like? That makes sense to me. I am not certain if everyone agrees with you.
Me:
I look like you.
God:
me is very attractive.
Me:
So am I.
God:
Wow we have something in common.
Me:
Go figure.
God:
Where is that?
Me:
I think it's in Rome.
God:
Are there any other ones someplace else?

He did agree to buy me a Mercedes Benz, however.