REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The Speech

POSTED BY: DAYVE
UPDATED: Thursday, January 18, 2007 10:22
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2740
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, January 11, 2007 8:09 AM

DAYVE


Just thought I would open the floor for some partisan bickering….
I just can’t understand the Neo-con thinking here. Does Bush really intend to continue a costly war in Iraq and threaten Iran and Syria at the same time….Isn’t “Napoleon complex” applicable here?



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 11, 2007 10:48 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by Dayve:
Just thought I would open the floor for some partisan bickering….
I just can’t understand the Neo-con thinking here. Does Bush really intend to continue a costly war in Iraq and threaten Iran and Syria at the same time….Isn’t “Napoleon complex” applicable here?





Napoleon won wars.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 11, 2007 10:57 AM

SABRI3L


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
Quote:

Originally posted by Dayve:
Just thought I would open the floor for some partisan bickering….
I just can’t understand the Neo-con thinking here. Does Bush really intend to continue a costly war in Iraq and threaten Iran and Syria at the same time….Isn’t “Napoleon complex” applicable here?





Napoleon won wars.




HAHAHAAAA!

Knitter of Cunning Jayne Hats

http://www.myspace.com/gazthegloomy



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 11, 2007 11:20 AM

DAYVE


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
Napoleon won wars.



well if that's the way you look at it.... then you're right, Napoleon and GW have nothing whatsoever in common...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 12, 2007 5:40 AM

REDLAVA


Maybe not Napoleon, but I heard several pundits comparing him to Lincoln.




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 12, 2007 6:24 AM

ERIC


Quote:

Originally posted by Redlava:
Maybe not Napoleon, but I heard several pundits comparing him to Lincoln.



That's okay, even former Raygun guys are starting to compare him to Hitler (in a way OTHER than being a fascist, I mean):

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Former_Reagan_aide_compares_Bush_to_
0109.html

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 13, 2007 3:28 PM

MISSTRESSAHARA


I'm just amazed this man is still in charge of your country...... it boggles the mind how he's gotten away with it all.

Ok, flame away.

If I'm a bitch, then life just got interesting

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 13, 2007 5:12 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.


Quote:

Originally posted by Misstressahara:
I'm just amazed this man is still in charge of your country...... it boggles the mind how he's gotten away with it all.



What flaming? It's a perfectly legitimate point. I just don't understand how he was elected in the first place.

Oh, wait... Nevermind.


Rules on voting here: http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=22892

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 14, 2007 6:10 AM

SIRI


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
Quote:

Originally posted by Dayve:
Just thought I would open the floor for some partisan bickering….
I just can’t understand the Neo-con thinking here. Does Bush really intend to continue a costly war in Iraq and threaten Iran and Syria at the same time….Isn’t “Napoleon complex” applicable here?





Napoleon won wars.



Yes, Napoleon won wars - until Waterloo.

I am not and never have been a Bush fan. However, I continually listen to as many sides of this debate as possible. I am not a military strategist (nor are most of us). Since Bush was elected there has been ongoing discussion about his intelligence and inflexibility not to mention stories that he believes god talks to him. Stories are just that - stories. If I could accept that our current president is an intelligent, thoughtful person who is willing to truly consider all options and make good decisions then I (and others) might be more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, to trust him (believe him) to "do the right thing." There are so many people with political irons in this fire, I'm even less sure.

So, the speech - George Bush is not an eloquent speaker - this speech was more of the same - in my opinion. I have come to distrust this man and his administration.

Guess time and history will be required to see the outcome and George Bush's legacy.

I do enjoy hearing a person speak with some eloquence and command of the English language. I have yet to hear a Bush Jr speech that meets that criteria. Thus I may be prejudical against the man.


"I was on the loosing side. Still not sure it was the wrong side."

Siri

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 14, 2007 10:25 AM

SIMONWHO


He also has Napoleon's battle plan - "first we turn up, then we see what happens." That's all very well if you're just looking to win a fight or destroy a country but if you're looking to win over a country, you need plans, resources and above all a recognition that the people you are currently conquering should one day be your ally.

At present Iraqis are treated as 'gooks' by the US government, military and media. That's why you're going to lose, surge or not.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 14, 2007 11:41 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by SimonWho:
At present Iraqis are treated as 'gooks' by the US government, military and media. That's why you're going to lose, surge or not.

Are you seriously trying to tell me you can't beat someone until they're your friend?



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 14, 2007 12:39 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by Siri:
Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
Quote:

Originally posted by Dayve:
Just thought I would open the floor for some partisan bickering….
I just can’t understand the Neo-con thinking here. Does Bush really intend to continue a costly war in Iraq and threaten Iran and Syria at the same time….Isn’t “Napoleon complex” applicable here?





Napoleon won wars.



Yes, Napoleon won wars - until Waterloo.

I am not and never have been a Bush fan. However, I continually listen to as many sides of this debate as possible. I am not a military strategist (nor are most of us). Since Bush was elected there has been ongoing discussion about his intelligence and inflexibility not to mention stories that he believes god talks to him. Stories are just that - stories. If I could accept that our current president is an intelligent, thoughtful person who is willing to truly consider all options and make good decisions then I (and others) might be more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, to trust him (believe him) to "do the right thing." There are so many people with political irons in this fire, I'm even less sure.

So, the speech - George Bush is not an eloquent speaker - this speech was more of the same - in my opinion. I have come to distrust this man and his administration.

Guess time and history will be required to see the outcome and George Bush's legacy.

I do enjoy hearing a person speak with some eloquence and command of the English language. I have yet to hear a Bush Jr speech that meets that criteria. Thus I may be prejudical against the man.


"I was on the loosing side. Still not sure it was the wrong side."

Siri



The Legacy idea reminds me of something I heard said of Lincoln, if he hadn't of been killed before he was call to account for his legacy, he wouldn't be remembered so fondly


The long line of military professionals that have spoken out against the actions of this administration, and the reaction to this opposition reminds me of Hitlers tinkering with planning on the Eastern Front.

Colin Powell --- really like to hear why he resigned

Anthony Zinni --- spoke out against Bush foreign policy pre 911. Said it was borderline insane


Really makes you wonder


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 14, 2007 12:41 PM

SEVENPERCENT


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Are you seriously trying to tell me you can't beat someone until they're your friend?




Well, in this case, that may be so. The broader picture is that you can't beat someone until he decides to stop fighting you. In the case of the Iraqis, they want us to leave, and there is a core militant wing dedicated to driving us out or dying - the problem being that for every two that die, they get four more to join the cause.

That's part of why the WW2 analogy to Iraq that some wingnuts use is faulty. The general populace was ready for the war to be over, and there was no guerilla army wanting to continue it. In this case, there is a threefold problem:
1., Core group of natives that hate us and want us gone
2., Core group of non-natives that hate us and want us gone
3., Two groups that hate each other, and want the other dead, but also want to see us gone

IMO, we can deal with 2. (sealing borders and killing a finite amount of people), but 1. and 3. are problematic. We can't deal with 1. and 3. by killing them, because we only breed more resistance. We have to either befriend them, and make them want us to stay, or leave, and let them duke it out.

Adding more troops with no diplomatic solutions in place is asking for trouble.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 14, 2007 2:18 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Colin Powell --- really like to hear why he resigned

Anthony Zinni --- spoke out against Bush foreign policy pre 911. Said it was borderline insane


Don't forget General William Odom either, he's not been shy in his criticisms himself.

As a CIC with no proper military experience, it pays to listen to your generals, that's WHY they're generals for cryin out loud - and when they're telling you that your plan is an idiotic fiasco, they damn well mean it.

I just wish more of em had the balls to say no to an obvious lunatic.

-Frem

PS - Don't get me started on Lincoln, you'll get pages of evidence, and start wondering why we built a monument to a monster.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 14, 2007 4:22 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


OK, maybe I'll squeeze in one leetle anti-Bush post. Bush really IS a uniter !
So many have put aside their differences to join together in this one thing - BUSH

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 14, 2007 4:37 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

PS - Don't get me started on Lincoln, you'll get pages of evidence, and start wondering why we built a monument to a monster.



He may seem like a monster when we put him in the context of now, but I think it was necessary at the time. Yes, he did many things we would not ever tolerate again, and his most successful general (Sherman) ravaged the South, but what would you have suggested he do, given that half the country wanted to kill the other, and continue to enslave blacks? Of course, in hindsight, there are things that could been seen that would have been better. But he handled it fairly well, given the circumstances.

Besides, the man was a lawyer, and we all know what that means...

Quote:

I do enjoy hearing a person speak with some eloquence and command of the English language. I have yet to hear a Bush Jr speech that meets that criteria. Thus I may be prejudical against the man.


Yes. I prefer to read the transcripts for just that reason - so I don't have to hear him saying the words, and can assign them different stress levels and such.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 14, 2007 5:07 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Dude, where did you learn your history ?
Here's a hint - most of what's taught as such in the american public school system ain't nothin of the sort.

Lincoln didn't care one whit about slavery and in fact supported an amendment to enshrine it forever in the US Constitution.

As for killin ? the South wanted to voluntarily secede from a Union based on consent of the governed, thus removing that consent, without violence... ain't how it happened, but that is what they wanted.

As for what came after, you tell me, man - how much of YOUR dollar goes to support the parasitic fedgov ?

He didn't free the slaves, he made us ALL slaves.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 14, 2007 6:14 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Dude, where did you learn your history ?



I could ask you the same question.

Quote:

Lincoln didn't care one whit about slavery and in fact supported an amendment to enshrine it forever in the US Constitution.


So, tell me again why he gave the Emancipation Proclamation?

The way I learned it, he personally supported it, but wanted to do whatever was necessary to keep the Union together. Once that was accomplished, he would have been willing to free the slaves (you know, had he not been shot).

Besides, even those of his Northern supporters (those on the border, in Illinois, or those he forced to stay with the Union) would have balked at him declaring that the Civil War was about slavery. There was no hope to free the slaves if the Confederacy remained, and there wouldn't have been a lot of safety had they remained a nation.

Link, please.

Quote:

As for what came after, you tell me, man - how much of YOUR dollar goes to support the parasitic fedgov ?


As of now, none. One of the perks to being a minor, I suppose.

Quote:

He didn't free the slaves, he made us ALL slaves.


Slaves? Really? Is the United States government so bad? Granted, there's rampant corruption, inept or fanatic politicans, and plenty a bogus or broken system (drug laws, social services, public schools, the health care system, social security) but the fundamentals of America itself are nice. Better than most places, anyway.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 14, 2007 7:54 PM

FLETCH2


My understanding was that the Declaration was intended to cause a large scale slave revolt in the south that would have disrupted the southern war machine. The Union didn't go to war with the South to abolish slavery, it went to war in part because it believed the succession was illegal and because the South tried to remove union military posts from their newly declared teritory.

However the South left because it believed that if it remained slavery would be abolished. So the war did in effect start because of slavery, just that that wasn't the reason folks in the North were told at the time.

The history of most countries are glorious myths used to sell national ideals. The true reasons things happen are usually more messy and less noble.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 14, 2007 8:27 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
He didn't free the slaves, he made us ALL slaves.

That’s a bit piratenewish. You might be a slave, but I’m not.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 14, 2007 10:26 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Oh yeah - try not payin the master his cut(taxes) and see how free you really are.

You asked for it....
Requested Linkage

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo44.html
Quote:

In his First Inaugural he pledged his support of a proposed constitutional amendment that had just passed the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives that would have prohibited the federal government from ever having the power "to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." In his First Inaugural Lincoln advocated making this amendment "express and irrevocable."

Dilorenzo can in fact, prove that claim - it's historically documented fact.

Lincoln is also the guy who had NYC shelled by artillery in response to draft riots because people did not wish to be cannon fodder for his ambitions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Draft_Riots

The union tactical doctrine seemed at times to be "just bury them in bodies, theirs, ours, who cares, we'll get more", Grant's own troops called him a butcher for good reason, especially after Cold Harbor
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cold_Harbor )
as compared to (initially) a very high percentage of the southern forces beiong volunteers, fighting and dying for something they believed in rather than being forced to fight for something they didn't - not a moral judgement this, but a simple statement of how things were.

At the end of it all, the south really had nobody LEFT to stand up and fight, the attrition of their forces was so horrific that widows and orphans were the bulk of southern population for a good long while.

(Side note: Forced Conscription is technically a form of slavery in and of itself and more horrifying in experience than any other.)

He was in fact hated at times more than the confederacy, even by his own people, who made their will known quite strongly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_riot_of_1861
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Fizzle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Jackson_Affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston_Riot

As with any war, most folk didn't really want it, especially if they had to fight it.

Constitution ? Habeus Corpus ? Due Process ? WHo gives a damn ?

http://www.civilwarhome.com/ProvostMarshal.htm

Freedom of the press ? in your dreams - many of those arbitrary arrests were newsies that Lincoln and supporters felt were 'disloyal' and thus subjected to arrest, and placed in the civil war version of gitmo.

And noteably, he did not seek a congressional declaration of war before acting.

The man was a monster, and it was against his ilk that the founding fathers put certain provisions in the constitution and forbade a standing army, for when you have a hammer, every problem starts looking like a nail.

He didn't preserve the Republic, he destroyed it, in favor of the bloated parasitic monster that the FedGov has become.

Was he somehow "Right" in doing so ? - I don't feel qualified to make that judgement, myself, in all honesty, but personally I doubt it.

It wasn't nearly as simple an issue as capsule history classes make it out to be, nor were the politicians of either side particularly noble or virtuous.. but the historical record of fact shows without a doubt that the man was right up there with Papa Doc, Pinochet, Hitler and others of that ilk.

If you can justify what Abe did, then you can similarly justify Hitlers own actions in unifying HIS country - and for myself, i'll have none of it.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and watching anyone emulate those actions makes me nervous, especially some texan who's not half the leader Abe was.
(Yes, I give him that, iron-fisted tyrant that he was, Abe had the charisma and oratory skill to make folks do what he wanted.)

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 15, 2007 1:12 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


FremD,

I hope you take no offense but ...

I take it you were born and raised in the South? If so maybe you could explain the thinking to me.

From what you said, the South was fighting for the right to own slaves. The North (Lincoln specifically) was fighting to extend federal authority. So you are on the side of the South, FOR your personal freedom from the Federal government but also FOR the right to own people. And you are AGAINST the North (Federal government) and the AGAINST the abolition of slavery. N'est-pas?

Which represents the greater freedom to you? states rights or outlawing slavery?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 15, 2007 5:32 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Oh yeah - try not payin the master his cut(taxes) and see how free you really are.

That’s your idea slavery, huh? Try living in a society were there are no roads, no fireman, no teachers, no military, no policemen and see how free you really are. I’m not a fan of taxes, but necessarily equating them to slavery is kind of harsh.

That being said, here’s a personal anecdote about taxes. One year I worked especially hard in order to get a project done on an advanced timetable because some higher-ups wanted it early. I came in early, worked late and weekends putting in extra hours of work that I generally never billed into the project, was never even paid overtime. I didn’t do any of this expecting a reward, but one day I was rewarded for all my work with a spot bonus of $1000.00. Hardly made up for the extra hours I put in, but it could turn a $1300 42” plasma tv into a $300 42” plasma tv. Yet when it finally came, it was just around $500! The Man took half my plasma tv money, when I worked extra for the bastard! We’ll see if I work that hard again.

No taxation is not slavery, but it sure as hell will wreak havoc on a countries production potential.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 15, 2007 7:39 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Rue:

Nah, the south was fighting for (primarily) an end to what they saw as northern exploitation and economic warfare (See Also: Morril Tarrif) as well as state sovereignity and government by consent of the governed.

As stated in an 1860 editorial in the Charleston Mercury-
" The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government, from a confederated republic (a voluntary union of states) to a national sectional despotism."

Slavery was an issue, sure, but neither the only, nor the primary, and lets face it, the practice was soon to die out regardless, most other countries phased it out via compensated emancipation rather than violence, but as a general rule slavery as an american institution was already doomed.

One must remember that the US banned importation of slaves in 1808 (although i'm sure a few smugglers did good business) and the general consensus of folk didn't own any - our whole society was changing to a point where folks didn't have to spend so much effort merely to survive and thus got to thinking about things beyond putting food on the table, and many of them viewed slavery with a vague disgust, if not outright revulsion.. a general enlightenment of society as a whole is repeatedly described by authors of the period.

I do think that the harsh measures of the time, particularly the reconstruction, led to the rise of the Klan and caused a social turbulence that continues to plague us to this day - whether that would have happened had the institution of slavery been allowed to expire via 'natural causes' I couldn't say, but those actions fed into a lot of the more severe racism in the south in later years.

In fact Rue, I was born in Maryland, which historically got stomped pretty viciously by that man, and yes, a seething hatred of him and his legacy does fester a little, especially when every republican governor since had crapped all over the state and smirked while doing it.

The greater freedom is the consent of the governed, again, I do not believe the institution of slavery in the US would have endured the industrial revolution, especially not when you look at the violent reactions to the attempted corporate slavery at the time.


Finn: That's just my perception of it.

I got no problem with paying for the things necessary to provide enough national infrastructure to support our society, such as it is, but I got a BIG problem with payin for stuff like shiny new aircraft carriers and missle subs so that people like shrub can play Ceasar, and I have a pretty nasty issue with say... payin for the bombs we just dropped on Somalia.

Wouldn't be so bad if we had a CHOICE - if there was, say, a 1040XL or something that allowed us to choose where the money went and vote with our money on what it would be used for... that'd be interesting, especially when people went "WTF?!" and started de-funding the pork, wouldn't it ?

As a self-employed, independant contractor, and one who pays for his own gas, plus manifest, I regularly stare down the barrel of tax rates higher than 50%, on top of the fuel tax, sales taxes, excise taxes AND sales tax on the full price of a product(tobacco) who's price mostly consists of excise tax (yes, that's a tax ON a tax, believe it or not) - property taxes, you get the picture - I work damn hard, and at the end of the day have to struggle to put food on the table because the FedGov has taken most of my money and used a chunk of it to blow up people in foreign countries with.

And what happens if you tell the strawboss(IRS) to piss off ?
They send armed thugs(police) to do violence and/or incarceration unto you.

Taxes as a general rule can be ruinous to a society, the american revolution started over them, and they lead to Shay's Rebellion, The Whiskey Rebellion, Tarring and Feathering of Tax Collectors (A practice I feel should be reinstated..) and all manner of social upheaval, especially when the taxed feel they have been "robbed" to some degree.

That's been a fact since the roman empire, at least.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 15, 2007 3:55 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
FremD,

I hope you take no offense but ...

I take it you were born and raised in the South? If so maybe you could explain the thinking to me.

From what you said, the South was fighting for the right to own slaves. The North (Lincoln specifically) was fighting to extend federal authority. So you are on the side of the South, FOR your personal freedom from the Federal government but also FOR the right to own people. And you are AGAINST the North (Federal government) and the AGAINST the abolition of slavery. N'est-pas?

Which represents the greater freedom to you? states rights or outlawing slavery?



My question to the both of you would be did the abolition of slavery as implemented really benefit the people in question ?

As I have read, many perhaps even a majority were turned out, jobless, and without means after the war. Even without the war there was no plan to provide for the education or welfare of these people, or to provide for the protection of whatever rights they were to be offered. Some of Lincolns own party advanced the idea of simply rounding up the former slaves and forcible shipping them back to Africa.

I would submit that either FremD is correct in saying that slavery only became the primary issue in the hindsight of history, or the US government was as shortsighted, corrupt and incompetent then as they appear to be today.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 1:39 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Actually, General Lee made some efforts postwar to see to the education of former slaves and various ideas to assist them in integration into society as freemen, wiki has a few comments on it but I don't have time to dig up links at the moment.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 2:35 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Actually, General Lee made some efforts postwar to see to the education of former slaves and various ideas to assist them in integration into society as freemen, wiki has a few comments on it but I don't have time to dig up links at the moment.

-Frem



Yes, but Lee was not the US government and he was on the side of the South in the war.

My point is Lincoln's government had no real plan past tanking the economy of the South, if the issue had of been slavery... some policy ideas would exist, and may even have been enacted after the war... instead of leadership in that regard segregation, dred scott , etc became law of the land.

And against the best efforts of Lee ( who fought against Lincoln ) and many others, the former slaves were in some cases worse off for what, a hundred years until the civil rights movement really picked up.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 4:21 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


There is a long sad history of many successful post Civil War black communities - torched and murdered into oblivion. Until the blacks learned that though they weren't slaves anymore they weren't free either. They just needed to learn their place.

Given that history, and the fact that the South was not only NOT looking to abolish slavery as an institution but was trying to expand it to new states and territories - I'd say the South was far from an innocent victim.

It still reads to me - if you support the Southern Civil War agenda, you de facto support its slavery.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 7:00 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Now yer just baiting me for free history lessons, I can tell....

While wholly irrelevant to whether or not Lincoln was the monstrous tyrant I paint him as, imma offer the following links in respect to this.

The issue was far, far more complex than that, slaveholders were a small minority (placed at 15% or less) of the south, and many southerners viewed the practice as repulsive themselves - it wasn't ever a matter of whether or not, it was a matter of when and how.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/wheelercauses.htm
http://www.civilwarhome.com/confederatecause.htm

To most of the men while raised up arms for the defense of the confederacy, it was a complete non-issue, and as I stated, the politicians of either side were not particularly virtuous, and a lot of grievances on both sides had merit, sure.

I do think the reconstruction was pretty horrific by any standards, and the integration of freed slaves into society was handled in the most incompetent, shortsighted, halfass fashion that caused a multitude of problems.

This all, of course, has little to do with the primary issue of whether Lincoln was a madman, but if you have additional historic questions, just go on an ask them.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 10:02 PM

SOUPCATCHER


To kind of riff off Rue here, there was a period (1865-1890) where freed blacks spread throughout what is now the lower 48. Urban. Rural. Didn't matter. After 1890, through a variety of methods (many of them involving violence or the threat of violence), black populations were forced into the inner city. At least in the North, Midwest and West. The South had a couple hundred years practice in their own racist infrastructure set-up to deal with uppity negroes.

Become too successful? Get lynched or burned out. And your neighbors, too.

Engage in a consensual relationship with a white woman? Get lynched or burned out. And your neighbors, too.

Stand up against a lynch mob? Get lynched or burned out. And your neighbors, too.

Raise a ruckus because your husband was lynched? Get lynched and have your unborn baby ripped from your womb and stomped on by a boot.

The Ku Klux Klan or, as I prefer to think of them, the most successful American terrorist organization in our history, was a manifestation of a greater sickness. How do you own human beings? How do you create a new country dedicated to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness while trafficking in human beings? You do it by convincing yourself that they aren't human. You do it by preaching that they don't have souls. You do it by training up your children to these beliefs. None of that goes away with the freeing of the slaves.

David Neiwert is in the middle of an excellent series on American eliminationism. I highly recommend the last two chapters. Quite long. But very eye-opening.

Strange Fruit: http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2006/12/eliminationism-in-america-vi.html
Quote:

from Strange Fruit (from a 1918 lynching, some details in spoilers)
...
It began on May 16 when a white landowner in rural Valdosta, Georgia, was shot to death at his home. His wife accused a black man named Sidney Johnson, and a lynch mob soon formed with the purpose of carrying out summary justice for the farmer's murder. However, when it was unable to locate Johnson, the mob turned its wrath on five black men who'd had the misfortune of being in the vicinity at the time and lynched them instead. Among the five was Haynes Turner, a former employee of the murdered farmer.

Turner's wife, Mary, was eight months pregnant, and when she heard of the murder, she vowed publicly to find the men responsible, swear out warrants against them, and ensure they were punished in the courts. Not surprisingly, her vow to seek justice doomed her; as an Associated Press report of the affair put it, Mary Turner had made "unwise remarks" about the execution of her husband, "and the people, in their indignant mood, took exceptions to her remarks, as well as her attitude." The local sheriff placed her under arrest, reportedly for her protection, but then surrendered her to a mob of several hundred white men and women -- as well as a number of children -- determined to "teach her a lesson."

Select to view spoiler:


At a place outside town called Folsom's Bridge, they stripped her, tied her ankles together, and hung her upside down from a tree. Dousing her with gasoline, they slowly roasted her to death. While she was still alive, a man using a knife ordinarily reserved for splitting hogs walked up and cut open the woman's abdomen. "Out tumbled the prematurely born child," wrote a news reporter covering the event. "Two feeble cries it gave -- and received for the answer the heel of a stalwart man, as life was ground out of the tiny form." Hundreds of bullets were then fired into Mary Turner's body. Sated, the mob left her body by the roadside. She and her child were buried in a shallow grave near the bridge.




After Sundown:
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/01/eliminationism-in-america-vii.htm
l

Quote:

from After Sundown (an excerpt of a 1902 NYT article)
...
Negro Driven Away
The Last One Leaves Decatur, Ind., Owing to Threats Made

The last Negro has left Decatur, Ind. His departure was caused by the anti-Negro feeling. About a month ago a mob of 50 men drove out all the Negroes who were then making that city their home. Since that time the feeling against the Negro has been intense, so much so that an Anti-Negro Society was organized.

The colored man who has just left came about three weeks, and since that time received many threatening letters. When he appeared on the streets he was insulted and jeered at. An attack was threatened ...

The anti-negroites declare that as Decatur is now cleared of Negroes they will keep it so, and the importation of any more will undoubtedly result in serious trouble.
...


These are the fruits of our peculiar institution. They are still with us. And will probably be with us as long as we remain a country.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 17, 2007 3:38 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Oh yick, that's positively horrific - it gives ME the willies, and that's far from easy, given my history and employment!

Yanno, I've never really understood racism, I thought it idiotic even as a child in a semi-racist family, and chose actively to not practice those same stupidities myself - recently it was all I could do to not comment in my usual rough-n-ready fashion when a friends mother decided to put her house up for sale because "those people" were moving in, and when the neighborhood stopped being all white, it stopped being all right ?

Purile idiocy, of the worst form, I barely even comprehend it.

I guess it's some vestige of throwback tribalism where folks mentally categorize folk who don't look like them as "Other, Alien, Threat" or something, cause it don't make no sense, really it don't.

I guess politics plays a role too, right now a prime target seems to be arabic folk, which makes livin in dearborn kinda rough, and I would have to say there was a merit to the words of one of my friends down on cass when he was talking to one of our arabic drivers.

"Man, everybody gotta hate somebody, ain't nothin new, always some low man on the totem pole for everyone else to crap on so they feel better, all it is, you're just the new negros, welcome to the club, man."

*shaking head*
Well, if most people are like that, guess that's why I don't like most people, ehe?

To quote Jayne - "It don't make no sense!"

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 17, 2007 3:01 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


On a lighter but sort of related joke


I went to a comedy club a few years back, one of the comics that night was a black man from L.A.

His bit started with him flying into Vancouver, a few airline jokes. Then he talked about standing infront of the terminal looking for a cab when three police cars tore in and slammed on the brakes. He said he fell to his knees covered his head and waited for the beating.....


After a minute he looked up and the cops were beating a native man twenty feet down the sidewalk


I love Canada he yells


All perspective I guess


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 18, 2007 10:21 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Oh yeah - try not payin the master his cut(taxes) and see how free you really are.

You asked for it....
Requested Linkage

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo44.html
Quote:

In his First Inaugural he pledged his support of a proposed constitutional amendment that had just passed the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives that would have prohibited the federal government from ever having the power "to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." In his First Inaugural Lincoln advocated making this amendment "express and irrevocable."

Dilorenzo can in fact, prove that claim - it's historically documented fact.

Lincoln is also the guy who had NYC shelled by artillery in response to draft riots because people did not wish to be cannon fodder for his ambitions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Draft_Riots

The union tactical doctrine seemed at times to be "just bury them in bodies, theirs, ours, who cares, we'll get more", Grant's own troops called him a butcher for good reason, especially after Cold Harbor
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cold_Harbor )
as compared to (initially) a very high percentage of the southern forces beiong volunteers, fighting and dying for something they believed in rather than being forced to fight for something they didn't - not a moral judgement this, but a simple statement of how things were.

At the end of it all, the south really had nobody LEFT to stand up and fight, the attrition of their forces was so horrific that widows and orphans were the bulk of southern population for a good long while.

(Side note: Forced Conscription is technically a form of slavery in and of itself and more horrifying in experience than any other.)

He was in fact hated at times more than the confederacy, even by his own people, who made their will known quite strongly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_riot_of_1861
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Fizzle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Jackson_Affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston_Riot

As with any war, most folk didn't really want it, especially if they had to fight it.

Constitution ? Habeus Corpus ? Due Process ? WHo gives a damn ?

http://www.civilwarhome.com/ProvostMarshal.htm

Freedom of the press ? in your dreams - many of those arbitrary arrests were newsies that Lincoln and supporters felt were 'disloyal' and thus subjected to arrest, and placed in the civil war version of gitmo.

And noteably, he did not seek a congressional declaration of war before acting.

The man was a monster, and it was against his ilk that the founding fathers put certain provisions in the constitution and forbade a standing army, for when you have a hammer, every problem starts looking like a nail.

He didn't preserve the Republic, he destroyed it, in favor of the bloated parasitic monster that the FedGov has become.

Was he somehow "Right" in doing so ? - I don't feel qualified to make that judgement, myself, in all honesty, but personally I doubt it.

It wasn't nearly as simple an issue as capsule history classes make it out to be, nor were the politicians of either side particularly noble or virtuous.. but the historical record of fact shows without a doubt that the man was right up there with Papa Doc, Pinochet, Hitler and others of that ilk.

If you can justify what Abe did, then you can similarly justify Hitlers own actions in unifying HIS country - and for myself, i'll have none of it.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and watching anyone emulate those actions makes me nervous, especially some texan who's not half the leader Abe was.
(Yes, I give him that, iron-fisted tyrant that he was, Abe had the charisma and oratory skill to make folks do what he wanted.)

-Frem



Ditto.


"You can't stop the signal!"
-Mr Universe, Pirate TV

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/8912.php
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=8cd2bd0379340120e7a6ed00f2a53ee5
.1044556

www.myspace.com/piratenewsctv
www.piratenews.org


Does that seem right to you?
www.scifi.com/onair/

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 18, 2007 10:22 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


Major George Bush was a Jewish soldier in the Revolutionary War, and Abraham Lincoln was adopted - his real name was Rothschild, heir to the trillionaire Jewish cartel, same as Adolf Hitler Schicklegruber.
http://www.conspiracyworld.com/index0128.htm
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/calendar.html

Honest Abe used his white slaves to perp terrorist bombings to destroy US cities, and genocided 600,000 US citizens, just like Jr Bush perped against NY City on 9/11, and New Orleans when he bombed the levees and blockaded escape and supplies, while sabotaging police radio antennas.

Abe invaded the South, Bush invaded the South with 40-million illegal aliens, with 200-million OTW. Both Abe and Bush are guilty of treason.

Will Bush get Abe's coup d'grat from the Shadow Govt, same as he gave Saddam and his headless brother?

Quote:


"The New York Draft Riots (July 13 to July 16, 1863; known at the time as Draft Week) were a series of violent disturbances in New York City that were the culmination of discontent with new laws passed by Congress to draft men to fight in the ongoing American Civil War. [Jewish] President Abraham Lincoln [Rothschild] sent several regiments of militia and volunteer troops to control the city. The conditions in the city were such that Major General John E. Wool stated on July 16, 'Martial law ought to be proclaimed, but I have not a sufficient force to enforce it.' The military suppressed the mob using artillery and fixed bayonets."
-Wikipedia, New York City Draft Riots (Lincoln used his white slaves to perp terrorist bombings to destroy US cities and to genocide 600,000 Amerikans)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Draft_Riots

nigger.
a member of a socially disadvantaged class of persons: "It's time for somebody to lead all of America's niggers... all the people who feel left out of the political process" - Ron Dellums.
-Merriam Webster Dictionary

"We're all black people now."
-Dick Gregory, September 12, 2001

"In the first few days of the new session of Congress, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and big Washington insiders such as Public Citizen and Common Cause will try to silence critics by regulating us through quarterly reports to Congress. Failure to report would result in civil and potential criminal penalties. Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently before the Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress the same as the big K Street lobbyists. Section 220 would amend existing lobbying reporting law by creating the most expansive intrusion on First Amendment rights ever. For the first time in history, critics of Congress will need to register and report with Congress itself. This latest attack on bloggers comes hot on the heels of Republican Senator John McCain's proposal to introduce legislation that would fine blogs up to $300,000 for offensive statements, photos and videos posted by visitors on comment boards."
-Richard A. Viguerie, Chairman, GrassrootsFreedom.com, January 17, 2007 (TN senators Lamar "I Raped Cathy O'Brien And Almost Killed Her" Alexander and Bob "I Hire Illegal Alien Felons" Corker both voted YES)
http://infowars.net/articles/january2007/180107Bloggers_Prison.htm
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_c
fm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00002


"A slave is he who cannot speak his thoughts."
-Euripides

slave.
Middle English sclave, from Old French esclave, from Medieval Latin sclvus, from Sclvus, Slav (from the widespread enslavement of captured Slavs in the early Middle Ages); see SLAV. Word History: The derivation of the word slave encapsulates a bit of European history and explains why the two words slaves and Slavs are so similar; they are, in fact, historically identical.
-American Heritage® Dictionary

"The people resemble a wild beast, which, naturally fierce and accustomed to live in the woods, has been brought up, as it were, in a prison and in servitude, and having by accident got its liberty, not being accustomed to search for its food, and not knowing where to conceal itself, easily becomes the prey of the first who seeks to incarcerate it again."
-Niccolo Machiavelli, Secretary of War for City-state of Florence, Italy, and tortured in his own city as a POW, from The Prince
http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince00.htm

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children."
-Hosea 4:6, Christian Bible (KJV)

"Jews must destroy the books of the Christians, especially the New Testament."
-Jewish Babylonian Talmud, Shabbath 116a


Bush with Jewish Talmud that orders beheading of all Christians and Muslims

VIDEO DOWNLOAD: JOHN QUADE VS NEW WORLD ORDER
Civil War 14th Amendment made white folks slaves
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3150298931467182492&hl=en




"You can't stop the signal!"
-Mr Universe, Pirate TV

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/8912.php
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=8cd2bd0379340120e7a6ed00f2a53ee5
.1044556

www.myspace.com/piratenewsctv
www.piratenews.org


Does that seem right to you?
www.scifi.com/onair/

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
So, how ya feelin’ about World War 3?
Sat, November 30, 2024 19:32 - 48 posts
What's wrong with conspiracy theories
Sat, November 30, 2024 19:28 - 22 posts
A History of Violence, what are people thinking?
Sat, November 30, 2024 19:16 - 19 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sat, November 30, 2024 19:16 - 4794 posts
Browncoats, we have a problem
Sat, November 30, 2024 18:41 - 15 posts
Sentencing Thread
Sat, November 30, 2024 18:39 - 382 posts
Ukraine Recommits To NATO
Sat, November 30, 2024 18:37 - 27 posts
Elon Musk
Sat, November 30, 2024 18:36 - 36 posts
Another Putin Disaster
Sat, November 30, 2024 17:58 - 1542 posts
A thread for Democrats Only
Sat, November 30, 2024 17:40 - 6932 posts
Hollywood LOVES them some Harvey Weinstein!!
Sat, November 30, 2024 14:33 - 16 posts
Manbij, Syria - 4 Americans Killed
Sat, November 30, 2024 14:06 - 6 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL