Berry is not pleased, that is why he has his hands around Bob's neck.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1391906940.jpg

those who DO study history are doomed to misinterpret it

Indeed. Because often, researchers leave out facts that are not supportive of their thesis or conclusion.

One of the most glaring offenders is Winston Churchill. His recounting of the Battle of Britain (including previous and subsequent events that bear on that time) is the standard by which other histories of the same time and place are judged. Except his account is very self-aggrandizing, and leaves out important details and doesn't give account of where he was dead wrong. Marshall Dowding's accounts tell a very different story. A story of chance and luck, of skill and desperation. IOW, a story any combat veteran would immediately recognize as true.

One of the things that really struck me about the story is how wrong Churchill was about sending men and aircraft to France during the Battle of France. Churchill was livid that Dowding didn't want this to happen. As it turns out, Dowding was 100% correct, and Churchill wrong. The Battle of Britain was a very near thing, and if Great Britain had not had the aircraft and men that would surely have been lost in France had Churchill had his way, the air battle over Great Britain might have turned out very differently.

Churchill of course does not own up to his mistake, except in passing (and quite minimized even then), but goes on to take nearly sole credit for his performance during the BoB. And this is the history that is taken as definitive.

Students of history are wise to not read just one history of an event. Especially one as told by a mere politician.

For any incident, "reality" lies somewhere in-between the various accounts. Of course this said (typed?) trying to avoid/ignore the whole "perception is reality" conundrum.

Absolutely.

And the real problem becomes one of numbers. Only a very few people publish accounts of particular events. These accounts become *the* history of the events in question. Thus the facts of the event become subject to peoples' impressions, and thus become "not-facts", but impressions. But in the end, these "impressions" are often called "facts".

I refer you to some of the histories of D-Day. The actual story is quite compelling, but when you ask even modern history students about the events of the day, many of them "remember" the movie "The Longest Day" rather than the actual accounts of what happened.

This is why all historical accounts must not be treated as "definitive", but as a "snapshot" of the person writing the narrative.

Hmmm 30 years ago makes it 1984. On a cold day in March of 1980 over at Dad's I realized that this government of ours was going to conduct business as usuall until it could not beg, borrow, print, steal nor tax another dime. That this was going to continue until it all crashed and burned. So 1984 makes it about right that people first started to see the corruption and rot in America. That also was the moment that I started to invest in Spoons as a hedge against inflation, thinking that i had a 30 year time horizon admittedly due to what my age would be in 30 years. Little did I know. Also you cite the last 4 years as having the 'gilt rubbed off by so oft a repeated" litany of doom and gloom. Perhaps people are right when they have an intuitive feeling that something is amiss, and they might not even know exactly what it is?

Hitler when in Landsburg realized that he could not gain power by over throwing the German govt but had to win election in order to achieve power. When he finally did become the Reich Chancellor he slowly at first started to tighten his grip on power by using those bureaucratic means. His aim was for his perception of the greater good of the German race of people and their need for Lebenstrum to enable his 1000 year Reich. The Obama/Democrat perception is that America moves forward with evermore central planning by the government. Obama and his Allies clearly thinks that it is the Party of NO that is standing in their way of achieving their version of a social justice Utopian America and as such are using those bureaucratic means as a way of putting their policies into action. Especially since they lost the House of Reps. So I was "cherry picking history" by making that comparison as to what the methods were going to be? Further Fest uses the term "MODERN REVOLUTION" to describe the bureaucratic method of colasing power which becomes a generic term rather than German specific term. One could say the "TRADITIONAL or OLD" way of Revolution is to over throw government by force

We are talking about the method of attaining power by bureaucratic means, which has nothing to do with the value judgement of what pertains to having "malice." There is your mistake in assuming "malice" or any such rot has anything to do with gaining power or that one has "malice" when one subscribes to the "MODERN" method of revolution by bureaucratic means when one cites Hitlers method as being comparable to the Obama method of putting his policies into motion in order to achieve what he sees as the common good. Sorry you lose points and credibility with your pejorative assumptions. .

What an epiphany that a persons "Memiors" can be self serving.

. History is a subjective endeavor as it is the story of mens perceptions and or experiences during their lives. One thinks that you would like to make history a by the numbers accounting endeavor.

One has postulated and will reiterate, that every man sees an event from his unique vantage point. Each having a slightly different perspective of the event and it's causality due to his vantage point. What men can agree on are the major events that lead to the outcome. Perhaps an analogy would be that people on opposite sides of a football stadium see different aspects of the event which those on the other side can not see What they can agree upon are the major plays that leads to one sides victory over the other.

Ironically some of the participants at D Day were technical advisers on the Longest Day movie. . Pips Priller and the German Major in the Bunker on Utah Beach in particular. Also Zanuck filmed combat during WW2 and if one recalls correctly was at the D Day landings..of course there was artistic license for various reasons in the movie. But over all for a Hollywood movie it did capture the essence of the experience. One however thinks that Private Ryan is revisionist history.

Circular reasoning is circular.

All the florid language and faux erudition in the world do not make the comparisons reasonable or rational. Nor does the "gosh, who, me?" tone attempted remove the subtext by which claims are made.

Propaganda is a very powerful tool, and the weak-minded fall for it. So far, you have regurgitated a lot of propaganda. And engaged in quite a lot of circular reasoning.

I really do hope retirement works out for you, because there are plenty of folks on the internet who completely outshine you in the re-presentation of political party talking points as "truth".

OK, this is getting interesting. Time for a cup of coffee and a bowl of Cheese-its...

Not really. THis is the same old crap regurgitated by those who read partisan blogs. The blogs get it from the partisan websites, which get that from the partisan mass-media pundits.

It's not interesting at all - it's merely the same old propaganda promulgated by those who wish to gain power and influence. Same as it ever was, ad infinitum. If you want some amusement, take a section of the regurgitation, and look up when it first appeared on the internet. You'll mostly see YEARS of repetitions. Sometimes, you'll see months. Never original thinking.

One hardly needs to listen to talk radio to make the comparison between the Obama/ Democrat agenda of colasing power by bureaucratic means and what method Hitler used to aggrandize power in Germany in the 30's. When one thinks about it one simply tries to make the applicable comparison In this case both methods overlay each other rather neatly.

Except for the ignoring of the stuff which makes all the difference in the world.

Only by ignoring that stuff does anything else make sense. Which is why cherry-pickers are routinely laughed at in circles where actual students of history discuss reality.

Even Santayana is laughing from beyond the grave.

And pray tell what "stuff" wouldn't an "actual student" of history be "ignoring." so that "reality" can be illuminated? Explain yourself, build your case! So far you have done nothing. Except of course to expend some bile.

Actually, your position has been thoroughly covered by others already. In nauseating detail. And debunked with links and sober analysis. Regurgitating that all here is a waste of time and effort - those who are REALLY interested can see for themselves how childish the comparison truly is. Those who FEEL with all their heart that you are correct? Well, they'll never accept the facts anyway. So for them, it's a waste of time as well.

Emotional arguments are fun. They rely on nothing more than personal value judgements, which are always interesting, but rarely compelling to anyone but the holder of those personal values. I applaud your attempt to bamboozle those easily taken by florid language and shallow comparisons - talking point internet politicking at its very finest. But those of us who have a deeper understanding of actual history weep at your abuse of reality.

Go gently into the night, tabs. PPOT isn't the place for your bloviating, or more accurately, the bloviating of the partisan blogosphere repeated here.

But I'm gong to help out my fellow PP readers by destroying your comparison easily. The circumstances surrounding Hitler's rise to power and the circumstances surrounding Obama's rise to power are so incredibly different as to be laughable in comparison. And thus, it fails both the culture and context portions of historical comparison. Therefore your conclusion is puerile and foolish.

Have a nice life, tabs, and please feel free to get the final word in. I'll not see it, because you have rendered yourself not worthy of further discussion on any matter.

"NOT REALLY" is exactly right! You have exposed yourself for being a left wing Neo Fascist. Even the NAZI's called themselves National SOCIALISTS. So put the placard around your neck and proudly wear it when you quote from the playbook of Barrack Obama and Nancy Pelosi..

BTW: The real reason why I "quoted" this Post is because I didn't want Silbert to be able to "DELETE" in case he even realizes the mistake that he just made. !

That is right fold you tent and run away..

"I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic; inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country."
-- President Andrew Jackson - (1824)

Hopefully, (how long has it been since my "Monolith" thread?), with the "MyIRA"...like in extort as much as they can, and the placement of the 7 Hubs (Soviet peasants), the realization is facial.

Maggie's Farm = Orwell's Farm

Anybody else here an "Exempt One", able to keep raising their Cash any old time they want on someone else's back, and keep calling it a "debt ceiling" lie?

"Thou Shall Not Steal"

Ha ha, if I had a dime for every pseudo-intellectual who posts on this board, I could afford that new P-car I want. What a joke. Right Mr. Webb?