Hey, Diogenes, this one is for you. Based on the following poll, you and your fellow history teachers have some work to do because over 1/4 of Americans have no idea what country ruled us before we gained our independence.
Read from Marist Poll:
7/2: Don’t Know Much About History?
"There’s good news for American education. About three-quarters of residents — 74% — know the U.S. declared its independence from Great Britain in 1776. The bad news for the academic system — 26% do not. This 26% includes one-fifth who are unsure and 6% who thought the U.S. separated from another nation. That begs the question, 'From where do the latter think the U.S. achieved its independence?' Among the countries mentioned are France, China, Japan, Mexico, and Spain.
Table: Country from Which U.S. Declared Independence"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
You can't blame that finger painting instructor diogenes for being ignorant, he gets all his historical information from whiki-lies.
Yeah, sadly, too many people don't care about history... don't see its relevance to today.
Although, your statement that over 1/4 of Americans have "no idea" is a little misleading, since the poll says 20% are "unsure", which isn't quite as bad as "no idea"... but it's still too many.
Then again, it wouldn't surprise me if more than 6% of Americans didn't know their own name. Guys like AnonyMouse will always be in that "huh?" category, no matter what the question is.
What IS your fascination with Wikipedia, AnonyMouse? It shouldn't be considered as a definitive source, but it's not far removed from an old-fashioned encyclopedia on most entries. And it's a helluva lot more accurate that Faux Noise!
DiogenASS: I believe you're talking about your teleprompter boy huh-huh huh-huh obama.
you must be part of the 6% James?
It's interesting to hear rightwingnuts mock Obama's speaking, after eight years of George Bush, who couldn't talk OR think!
DiogenASS: Bush kept you safe from a terrorist attack for 7 years (I believe he was thinking, he was thinking about the safety of the American people, even your safety dio)
Obama's love bead approach doesn't seem to working, 3 terrorists attacks and 3 near misses in 18 month's (It don't seem this administration is thinking about the safety of the American people, not even leftwingloons like you dio)
It's not about safety of the American people, now is it dio?
Liberals care about one thing only and that's what's best for the progressive democrat party, if the safety of American’s get in the way of their socialist transformation of America, so be it.
LMAO You are too stupid to realize how funny you are, AnonyMouse!
Although you don't cite specifics in your "3 attacks, 3 near misses" assertion, I'd bet that one of them was the Christmas airplane attempted terrorist attack with the exploding underwear guy, right?
If you are counting that, then you cannot claim that Bush kept us "attack free" for seven years... or did you conveniently "forget" Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber"?
And, if it wasn't so tragic, it'd be hilarious that you VERY coveniently say that Bush kept us attack-free for SEVEN years.
Yeah, after allowing the worst terrorist attack on American soil EVER, America under Bush never experienced a repeat of 9/11. That'd be like the mayors of Nagasaki and Hiroshima bragging that no one's dropped an atomic bomb on their cities from 1946 to the present.
If you truly believe that ANY President doesn't care about the safety of Americans, then you need to seek psychiatric help ASAP.
You just cannot grasp that we're all Americans with different ideas of how to best get things done, can you? You and Ms. MoreLies have to label your political opponents as The Devil, so you can feel better about your own political views.
DiogenASS: I guess these slipped your dimwit mind, shooting of two US soldiers who were military recruiters in Arkansas, a terrorist killed 13 US soldiers and wounded 30 others at Ft. Hood and the car bomb left in Times Square by a terrorist (the only reason the bomb didn't go off is because the timer wasn't set to PM),
The Clinton administrations fault for 9/11 attack.
More than a year before the 9/11 attacks, Clinton administration intelligence officials had identified four of the 19 9/11 hijackers as a terrorist threat - including al-Qaida team leader Mohamed Atta and his partner Marwan al-Shehhi, whose planes destroyed the World Trade Center and killed over 2,700 people.
But the critical information was not acted on, at least in part, because of prohibitions against intelligence sharing implemented by former Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, who was reportedly installed in her post at the insistence of then-first lady Hillary Clinton.
In the summer of 2000, a military team, known as Able Danger, had prepared a chart that included visa photographs of Atta and al Shehhi and recommended to the military's Special Operations Command that the information be shared with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Rep. Curt Weldon and a former intelligence official told the New York Times.
"We knew these were bad guys, and we wanted to do something about them," the former intelligence official said.
However, the recommendation was rejected and the information was not shared, in part, said the Times, because the four suspects had entered the United States on valid entry visas.
But Rep. Weldon and the unnamed intelligence official also cited what the paper described as "a sense of discomfort common before Sept. 11 about sharing intelligence information with a law enforcement agency."
In fact, such intelligence sharing was strictly prohibited under Ms. Gorelick's policy, known at the Justice Department as "The Wall," which, in the spring of 2000, had also prevented the CIA from tipping off the FBI that two additional 9/11 hijackers, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, had entered the country.
Al-Midhar and al-Hamzi were identified by the Able Danger team as well, the Times said.
The account by Weldon and the Times intelligence source is the first assertion that Atta and al Shehhi - who caused the most destruction in the worst attack ever suffered on U.S. soil - had been identified by the Clinton administration.
In testimony before the 9/11 Commission, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft blasted Gorelick's "Wall," saying, "The single greatest structural cause for September 11 was the wall that segregated criminal investigators and intelligence agents"
"[Ms. Gorelick] built that wall," said Ashcroft, "through a March 1995 memo."
The Gorelick memo stipulated, in part:
"We believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will more clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations. These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation."
I've explained this to you several times and you don't seem to understand the facts.
Do you have Alzheimer’s or are you just a dunce?
Funny how you whine about Obama blaming Bush for everything, and then you try to lay off all the blame of 9/11 on Clinton.
Yeah, in hindsight, Clinton made his share of mistakes. But do you remember Bush's famous "Good, you've covered your ass" comment to the national security guys who briefed him about a possible imminent Al Qaeda attack in August 2001?
The real point is, there is terroris in this world. There always has been, and there always will be. And putting the blame on one presidential administration or another is irrelevant. And keeping a scoreboard is irrelevant, especially when you don't pretend to be honest in doing so.
No, the Arkansas and Texas murders didn't slip my mind. Did Hasan Akbar slip your mind? He was the U.S. Army soldier who killed two officers and injured fourteen others when he went beserk in Camp Pennsylvania in Iraq, in 2003.
Was George W. Bush "responsible" for this attack? OF course not! No President can stop everything that a madman might do. But, if you insist on this stupid and illogical scorekeeping, then there's no way of avoiding chalking this up to Bush.
Heck, if I used your rationale, I could claim that none of the recent terrorist attacks are chargeable to Bush, not Obama, because Bush never followed up on his pledge to get Osama bin Laden, "dead or alive", I believe he phrased it.
This stuff isn't some Sunday afternoon beer softball league game in which the score is kept, AnonyMouse. It's clearly out of your league to comprehend.
Post a Comment