USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[Jelliz 10]

Is this where the trolling is happening?

Originally Posted by tacticalnuggets View Post

You know how long its going to take me to post all of the sources I have? DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG?! You guys know what the definition of plethora is right?

Kewl story bro:thumbsup:

[SigintArmA 10]

Not coincidentally, in the only civil war in US history, the starters of it were fighting for slavery and less rights so they could profit, not for freedom.

Sorry ryguy, but the 'US Civil War' Wasn't the only civil war ^^; there was smaller, proxy battles around... the late 1700s to early 1800s (I can't quite recall) that were about state lines. IE two states wanting X spot on the map and such. It was considered a civil war, but not one big enough (Or historical) enough to be written down in school books (But on TV programs like the History Channel) and minor books.

Aaand err I hate to put a kink in the tires of hating 'tacticalnuggets' but... I took history, and studied the civil war and 'tacticalnuggets' was right. The civil war wasn't just over slaves. It was over quite a few things. I will agree with him on the point it wasn't just over slaves. It was a piece, but not the 70-80% of it. I can't quite recall -all- the reasons but slavery certainly wasn't the case. It was, lets say, the pack that broke the camels back. It's the thing that pushed things too far for the south. I'd take the time to look up sites and links but all my resources were from TV programs and books I read (Which I can't remember due to it being 1 AM T_T)

But yes, getting on tact about saying it wasn't the main reason (Most likely for maybe thinking he was for the south/slavery/what ever personal reason you have) isn't it. Heck, even one of Lincoln's famous address to free the slaves -NEVER- worked. It might have sounded pretty but due to the South not being in the Union, he had no say over what they did.

Theres a lot of facts people overlook, that people have thought of their whole life from listening to -BASIC- history lessons in school. But taking the time to look things up, study, learn. It reveals the sides of things you once -thought- you knew to be either, false, myth, dead-true, etc. But going off of things you just have hard-pounded in your head to pass a history final isn't the best way to do things. Because there is ONE true fact, schools are biased. They'll teach you 1. What they want you to believe 2. What the head board thinks you need to know. It all comes down to taking the time, and learn.

Now, this should be the end of the civil war talk, and head to a more modern talk! So goodnight and stay good.

[Big Mac 19]

Sorry ryguy, but the 'US Civil War' Wasn't the only civil war ^^; there was smaller, proxy battles around... the late 1700s to early 1800s (I can't quite recall) that were about state lines. IE two states wanting X spot on the map and such. It was considered a civil war, but not one big enough (Or historical) enough to be written down in school books (But on TV programs like the History Channel) and minor books.

No there was only one civil war. what you're talking about are a series of minor rebellions and uprisings that are mentioned in public school history classes.

They're known as Shays' Rebellion, Whiskey Rebellion, Dorr Rebellion, Mormon War, and the Kansas Border War. None of them had to do with state line disputes and only one of them had to do with the civil war and that was The Kansas Border War.

Aaand err I hate to put a kink in the tires of hating 'tacticalnuggets' but... I took history, and studied the civil war and 'tacticalnuggets' was right. The civil war wasn't just over slaves. It was over quite a few things. I will agree with him on the point it wasn't just over slaves. It was a piece, but not the 70-80% of it. I can't quite recall -all- the reasons but slavery certainly wasn't the case. It was, lets say, the pack that broke the camels back. It's the thing that pushed things too far for the south. I'd take the time to look up sites and links but all my resources were from TV programs and books I read (Which I can't remember due to it being 1 AM T_T)

Wrong. There were other issues but the main issue was slavery, because the south wanted the territories to be "slavery friendly" and the north wanted to halt the expansion of slavery. That along with many other issues the all related to slavery forced the southern states to succeed and Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation made the war totally about slavery.

Where a lot of people go wrong is saying that Lincoln was against slavery, he wasn't against slavery, he was against the expansion of slavery. He only freed the slaves as a way to hurt the south economically.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

DHS Flight Screening 72 hours in advance

As a result of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) mandate, beginning November 1, all passengers will be required to have Secure Flight Passenger Data (SFPD) in their reservation at least 72 hours prior to departure. This is the next phase in a program that was initiated by the TSA in 2009.

In compliance with this mandate you will be required to provide Secure Flight Passenger Data:

To purchase any ticket on or after September 15, 2010

To travel November 1, 2010, or later regardless of purchase date

This has just killed all the business flights, along with some airlines. You have an urgent meeting? Are you negotiating a deal? Death in the family? You have to get on a plane by tomorrow morning? Business can wait in a communist state. :icon_eek:

P.S. From the FAQ: Q: Can I fly the same day I buy a ticket since I'm required to have SFPD information in my reservation 72 hours prior to departure?

A: Yes, we will collect and transmit the SFPD to the Department of Homeland Security when we ticket your reservation.

Kan I hav your paperz bitte? Danke schon.

Edited September 20, 2010 by Iroquois Pliskin

[Big Mac 19]

Dude the airlines have been slowly dying ever since 9/11...

[ryguy 10]

Where a lot of people go wrong is saying that Lincoln was against slavery, he wasn't against slavery, he was against the expansion of slavery. He only freed the slaves as a way to hurt the south economically.

Yes actually he was against slavery... He grew up living around slaves seeing it first hand, this is the same reason he wanted to give blacks the right to vote. People seem to like to claim Lincoln as actually not minding slavery when in fact the exact opposite is true, he "abhored" it.

How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes' date=' be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes." [/quote']

The monstrous injustice of slavery... deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world- enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites- causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Yes actually he was against slavery... He grew up living around slaves seeing it first hand, this is the same reason he wanted to give blacks the right to vote. People seem to like to claim Lincoln as actually not minding slavery when in fact the exact opposite is true, he "abhored" it.

I have no idea where you got your information from, but I suggest you read this book.

Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

It was true Lincoln was against slavery when he was running for Congress, but it was because labor was very scared that it might replace them since it was cheap. But the large German community living there had a lot of power and persuaded him that it wasn't in Illinois' or the county's best interest to start anything with the South. So that's the last your heard of anything dealing with slavery until the Emancipation Proclamation.

I know that's that not the best summary, since I haven't read the book in like three years. This is partly due to me not really finding the 1800s all that interesting.

Edited September 21, 2010 by Hans Ludwig

[Big Mac 19]

Yes actually he was against slavery... He grew up living around slaves seeing it first hand, this is the same reason he wanted to give blacks the right to vote. People seem to like to claim Lincoln as actually not minding slavery when in fact the exact opposite is true, he "abhored" it.

Wrong. There's a difference between being against slavery and being against the expansion of slavery. Being against the expansion of slavery was considered a moderate stance on the subject. Lincoln was content with the south keeping their slaves as long as they didn't try to export slavery to western territories. The south wasn't content with that and from there on things went downhill and lead to the civil war.

If you took a minute to think about it, what did the southern economy run on, it ran on slave labor. The Emancipation Proclamation's sole purpose was to hurt the south economically. It had very little to do with actually freeing the slaves for noble reasons, that's just how history portrays it. I'm not defending slavery I'm just putting things in perspective on how the world runs and noble intentions don't win wars and Lincoln wanted to win the war as quickly as possible and to do that he had to free the slaves.

Edited September 21, 2010 by Big Mac

[comradechaos 10]

Is it possible that it was for both noble and political reasons?

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Is it possible that it was for both noble and political reasons?

No, it's not possible. Then again you are probably so brainwashed into believing what revisionist have taught you in your 9th grade history class.

Like Big Mac said, and I usually don't agree with him, it was all purely done to cripple the Southern economy.

[Wolfrug 0]

Like Big Mac said, and I usually don't agree with him, it was all purely done to cripple the Southern economy.

Oh, so THIS is what this whole discussion has been about. Confused me there for a moment: "why are they complaining about a piece of history only historians really care about?". Ahah! Because of the north-south divide.

In other words, Lincoln should have left well enough alone so as not to cripple the south's economy so much, which now has far-reaching consequences into the present day?

...an economy based on slave labour. What on earth am I missing here? Who gives a crap if it was done for altruistic or selfish reasons, the end result was the same (=good). I can fully understand your 'revisionism' in this matter: this is not exactly a piece of history, north OR south, that you should be very proud of.

Oh well. Carry on!

Regards,

Wolfrug

[HyperU2 11]

In hindsight we should have picked our own cotton.

[WhoCares 0]

... The Emancipation Proclamation's sole purpose was to hurt the south economically. It had very little to do with actually freeing the slaves for noble reasons, that's just how history portrays it. ....

It is true that the E.P. (from Sept. 1862) was not for noble reason but neither was it to hurt the southern economics - how could it do so considering that the southern states just ignored it. It could only hurt those regions occupied by the North.

The most important result of the E.P. was that there was no more hope in recognition and support of the South from Europe (most notably England).

There wouldn't have been a civil war if it had "just" been about slavery - while there was a strong abolitionist (=anti-slavery) movement in the north, there would have been hardly enough of them to form a sizable army to march against the South. Based on the slavery as such the north would have not been able to fill the ranks - one must remember that it was an army of volunteers, draft was only installed later during the civil war!

What the war was about is the idea of the USA as Perpetual Union of states compared to a Confederation of independent states/nations (like the European Confederation Union :D).

Of course, the Secession was a direct reaction to the dispute on the expansion of the slavery to the west (a much older conflict, e.g. Missouri Compromise (1820); note also the box "Events leading to the US Civil War" on that article), so there is a direct link to it. But as said, few in the North would have gone to war just because of that.

Edited September 23, 2010 by WhoCares

[comradechaos 10]

No, it's not possible. Then again you are probably so brainwashed into believing what revisionist have taught you in your 9th grade history class.

That's a rather strong response for just a question.

[maturin 12]

it was all purely done to cripple the Southern economy.

Err, I don't think Lincoln wanted to destroy the economy of the war-ravaged regions he had already re-conquered. There were many reasons behind the Proclamation itself, among them the destruction of the rebellious Planter class, but it was mostly a formality. Everyone knew that Northern victory in the war would be the death of slavery, and that the slave economy would not survive no matter what the government said. The Proclamation simply put a finer, more consistent legal point on it. And for the President was a Republican, after all, with a large part of the majority party in Congress howling for him to do it.

But I often hear people dismissing slavery altogether by reducing the causes of the war to economic disparities between industrial and agricultural zones of the United States. It's a really convenient argument. Take some actual historical observations about competition between different regional industries, and make it sound like the government of a country was declaring economic war on half of itself, like the two parts were already diametrically opposed to each other and in a zero-sum arrangement befitting rival countries. Heck, that way you don't even have to worry about things like treason and rebellion. They were practically already split up and it was the North's fault!

Oh, and the new school of thought is that the war in the Pacific wasn't about Japanese imperial aggression, it was completely fought over oil exports.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Is it possible that it was for both noble and political reasons?

You will get the answer to your question around the next Presidential Elections.

As for the first Civil War: slavery has almost non-existant costs, thus a large portion of the population, in this case - the Southern states, did not generate revenue for the Union, and seeing as tax revenue was being lost, the North decided to get the Southern states back in line, if there ever was one.

You can see a similar thing today with people going GALT, and decreasing tax revenue in certain States that you know all-too-well. Not to mention the bubbles in the Social Security and the like.

History sometimes repeats itself due to certain behavior patterns in human beings, even if the events are generations apart: people today do not know why the Great Depression occurred in the early XX century, why the British investors fled to US in the late 1920s, why their grandfathers had to stand in a soup line, or even the fact that the world in 2010 is in another Depression - all it took is 1 generation, 70 years.

Edited September 24, 2010 by Iroquois Pliskin

[walker 0]

Hi all

It takes a while but eventualy the truth will win:

CPAC 2011: Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld booed at GOP convention in D.C.

BY Aliyah Shahid

DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Friday, February 11th 2011, 8:18 AM

Ouch.

Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney were booed on Thursday at the Conservative Political Action Conference, the annual conservative Mecca where high-profile right-wingers are typically adored rather than abhorred.

A number of young people, reportedly Texas Rep. Ron Paul supporters, walked out in protest when the former defense secretary took the stage in D.C. to receive the conference's "Defenders of the Constitution" award. .

When former Vice President Cheney made a surprise appearance to honor Rumsfeld, he too was booed with audience members yelling "Where's Bin Laden," "murdering scum," and "draft dodger."...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/02/11/2011-02-11_cpac_2011_dick_cheney_and_donald_rumsfeld_booed_at_conservative_convention_in_dc.html

As always follow the link to the original article in full.

If there are two evil people in the world then these are the two.

Reposted here to correct error in posting in a seperate thread.

Kind Regards walker

---------- Post added at 05:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:07 PM ----------

Hi all

A couple of Addendums to the above:

Cheney’s office misled Colin Powell on Iraq threat, former aide says

Posted on 02.19.11

Categories: Nation

Lawrence Wilkerson, the former chief of staff of former Secretary of State Colin Powell, said Friday that former vice president Dick Cheney’s office misled his old boss with bogus information to sell the Iraq War to the American people. This talk with MSNBC’s Cenk Uygur Friday came in the wake of Iraqi defector Rafid Ahmed Alwan Al-Janabi nicknamed “Curveball†admitting he lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

This video is from MSNBC, broadcast Feb. 17, 2011, snipped via Attention101.

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/02/cheneys-office-misled-colin-powell-on-iraq-threat-former-aide-says/

As allways follow the link to the original story in full but in this case also to see the actual video

I wonder who the CIA expert was at the time or whether in fact it was some one from Dumsfeld's Office of Special Plans.

Kind Regards walker

Edited February 21, 2011 by walker

[*LK1* 10]

"When former Vice President Cheney made a surprise appearance to honor Rumsfeld, he too was booed with audience members yelling "Where's Bin Laden," "murdering scum," and "draft dodger.".."

harsh comments,but truth.he should aspected that.

Yes actually he was against slavery... He grew up living around slaves seeing it first hand, this is the same reason he wanted to give blacks the right to vote. People seem to like to claim Lincoln as actually not minding slavery when in fact the exact opposite is true, he "abhored" it.

strange that he personally owned slaves in his house...:rolleyes:

anyway dont get me wrong.he was a good president of course.

a bit hypocrite but still good.

Edited February 21, 2011 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[Hans Ludwig 0]

strange that he personally owned slaves in his house...:rolleyes:

anyway dont get me wrong.he was a good president of course.

a bit hypocrite but still good.

Libertarians and Conservatives wouldn't say he is a good President. Matter of fact, he led to the largest increase in the federal government

Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe

http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=312

DiLorenzo readily resolves the paradox. Lincoln opposed extension of slavery because this would interfere with the prospects of white workers. Lincoln, following his mentor Henry Clay, favored a nationalist economic program of which high tariffs, a national bank, and governmentally financed "internal improvements" were key elements. This program, he thought, would promote not only the interests of the wealthy industrial and financial powers he always faithfully served but would benefit white labor as well. Blacks, in his opinion, would be better off outside the United States; and, throughout his life, Lincoln supported schemes for repatriation of blacks to Africa and elsewhere. If blacks left the country, they could not compete with whites, the primary objects of Lincoln's concern. (Lincoln, by the way, did not see this program as in any way in contradiction to his professed belief that all men are created equal. Blacks, he thought, have human rights but not political rights.)

Edited February 22, 2011 by Hans Ludwig

[BF2_Trooper 0]

Hi all

It takes a while but eventualy the truth will win:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/02/11/2011-02-11_cpac_2011_dick_cheney_and_donald_rumsfeld_booed_at_conservative_convention_in_dc.html

As always follow the link to the original article in full.

If there are two evil people in the world then these are the two.

Reposted here to correct error in posting in a seperate thread.

Kind Regards walker

---------- Post added at 05:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:07 PM ----------

Hi all

A couple of Addendums to the above:

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/02/cheneys-office-misled-colin-powell-on-iraq-threat-former-aide-says/

As allways follow the link to the original story in full but in this case also to see the actual video

I wonder who the CIA expert was at the time or whether in fact it was some one from Dumsfeld's Office of Special Plans.

Kind Regards walker

Sorry to break it to you dude, but this aint the big news you're making yourself think it is. I havent heard a peep about this on any of the major news networks not even freakin Al Jazeera English! Perhaps maybe the rest of the world has moved on from their Bush derrangement syndrome. Amazing I know!

[walker 0]

Sorry to break it to you dude, but this aint the big news you're making yourself think it is. I havent heard a peep about this on any of the major news networks not even freakin Al Jazeera English! Perhaps maybe the rest of the world has moved on from their Bush derrangement syndrome. Amazing I know!

Hi BF2_Trooper

Must be these media outlets imagination then:

Fox News

Cheney Heckled At CPAC... 'Draft Dodger!' 'Where's bin Laden?'

Dick Cheney just popped up here at CPAC to introduce his old pal and Bush administration colleague Donald Rumsfeld. Fans of Ron Paul turned what should have been a friendly moment before an audience of fellow conservatives into a screaming match and protest action that resembled what a Cheney-Rumsfeld hug at the Netroots Nation convention might look like.

Rumsfeld is being given CPAC's "Defender Of The Constitution" award, a concept that apparently rankled Paul supporters in the crowd. Many of them got up and walked out en masse at the mention of Rumsfeld, though some stayed behind in the conference hall to heckle the architects of the invasion of Iraq.

One shout of "where's Bin Laden?" rang out as Cheney spoke of Rumsfeld....

http://nation.foxnews.com/cpac/2011/02/10/cheney-heckled-cpac-draft-dodger-wheres-bin-laden

As Always follow the link to see the original article, also in this case the Fox video

h8EPu5OvX8Q

CNN

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/10/cheney-rumsfeld-face-jeers-and-cheers/

Washington Post

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/02/happy_hour_roundup_184.html

Redstate

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2011/02/13/ron-paul-supporters-boo-heckle-rumsfeld-and-cheney/

Vanity Fair

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/02/dick-cheney-and-donald-rumsfeld-booedbooedat-cpac.html

NPR

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/02/10/133661385/cheney-cheered-booed-at-cpac-as-he-introduces-rumsfeld

Washington Examiner

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/02/young-libertarian-activists-point-way-freedoms-future

LA Times

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sc-dc-0211-cpac-20110210,0,6540848.story

Wall Street Journal

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704629004576136731852843422.html

Heritage

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/02/17/can-conservatism-hold-together/

Etc. etc. etc.

A simple Google search shows 100s more, I got bored though :(

As you can see I chose a representative mix of right and left sources from the first page of a google news search.

Kind Regards walker

Edited February 22, 2011 by walker

[*LK1* 10]

is a shame how that guy used his political influence to expand the economic power of halliburton. and strangely has become the president(vice? i dont remember so well...)of that company a couple of months later.

[wipman 1]

Hi, about the past, and the last things happening on Egypt etc too...

- A Night In Tunisia.

- A Night In Tunisia (Part.II).

A good reading, and for free!!:

- Martin Bormann - Nazi In Exile.

A lighter reading, free too!!:

- "Democracy, Muslim Brotherhood Style".

I see the news in other way after had heard and readed those things. A good part of this is directly related with the U.S. internal and international policy, dating from the early 20s and early. Let's C ya

[BF2_Trooper 0]

Hi BF2_Trooper

Must be these media outlets imagination then:

.

Kind Regards walker

I never said that it didnt happen. Let me put it simply to you what I meant - NOBODY CARES.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

I never said that it didnt happen. Let me put it simply to you what I meant - NOBODY CARES.

lol That is so true. No one has ever cared about Cheney. He was just the Vice President and was to busy having heart attacks and keeping himself a live for him to be a bother or worry to the rest of us.