Printable View
Who ,in your opinion , was or is the worst American president in history and why ?
Please , Bush-haters , try not to get too vocal on this one and please do try to stay within the parameters of the question ( ie. don't go ranting on about " Imperialist aggression " etc.) as I don't want this descending into a "We Hate Bush " rally.
Just stay concise and pleasant and I'm sure everyone'll be happy.
I don't believe any of the recent Presidents, (Clinton and W.) were that awful, but I can say that there were even worse presidents in the past. I'd probably say Herbert Hoover was pretty bad, as during his term, the US economy actually went into the "Great Depression."
I am sure that some would say the same about the current Bush, but I don't think that would be so.
President Reagan; talking about robbing people of their conscience.
Damn Ronald Reagan, damn you all to hell. :mad2:
Herbert Hoover. The shanytowns were called hoovervilles for a reason. Helloooo earth to president ... nobody has a job ...
George W. Bush is one of the worst that there ever has been for a lot of reasons but I think there are a few others that would beat him. I don't really agree with Hoover being a terrible president because of the party stance at the time. The do nothings from what I understand. To my knowledge they would try to leave things as they are and just let what ever would happen happen as it is the natural flow of things. After that FDR came in and was the exact opposite and did everything for everyone.
I will think about this later and give my answer.
Forgive me if i sound like an ignorant forigner but I think they worst president you Americans have had is Richard "I am not a crook" Nixon. oooo boy Watergate...
I liked Kennady the best.
Nixon wasn't all that bad. He just got caught.
.opt
Hoover (Great Depression), Buchanan (Civil War), Bush Jr. (Complete idiot)
ronald reagan is great he destroyed communism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
Ronald Reagan was the greatest president America has ever had. Dealt Communism its deathblow, restored confidence in America, and brought us out of a recession so bad (20+% interest rates, double-digit inflation) that it may very well have otherwise slid into another depression.
As far as the worst, there are quite a few:
Andrew Jackson, whose "Tariff of Abominations" nearly started the Civil War 30 years early.
Abraham Lincoln, who invaded and annexed the Confederate States of America, engaged in brutal repression in his own nation, ordered Sherman's March to the Sea, and ushered in the most brutal rape of a nation that the United States--or most other nations, for that matter--have ever engaged in.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose actions prolonged and worsened the Great Depression, and added to Stalin's power, causing problems that it would take decades to solve and cause untold repression before then.
Jimmy Carter, whose betrayal of the Shah allowed Khomeini and his goons to take over Iran, whose general wussiness with the Arab nations brought about an oil crises, and whose government policies gave us a thoroughly nasty recession.
But hands-down the worst--Bill Clinton.
Presided over the largest tax increase in American history, bombed a camel and a Sudanese aspirin factory on the day of Monica Lewinsky's testimony, started a bombing campaign in Iraq that just happened to begin the day his impeachment was scheduled, tried to blame the Oklahoma City Bombing on Rush Limbaugh, used the FBI to gather evidence on his political opponents, groped pretty nearly everything that wore a skirt and didn't sing bass, committed felonies to cover up his adolescent sexcapades, has at least one credible accusation of rape standing against him, nearly eviscerated our armed forces, allowed the build-up of Osama bin Laden's power and his many and varied terrorist actions against the US that culminated in 9-11--I could go on for pages without listing it all.
Not being American, I'm merely stating on an outside view so forgive me if some points are mute.
Looking at history there have been a few seriously BAD presidents. One of the worst, so far, is your present one. George W. Bush. He has zero respect world wide. He has alienated the US from the world more than any other President. I don't want to turn this into an Anti-Bush slam either, but if he qualifies, and he does, then you simply can't exclude him on the basis that many people will agree with you.
Bush has time left to change things, and I hope he does. He has positive qualities. He's headstrong, unwaivering and won't be used. His major fall-points are his public speaking and his apparent lack of control over his underlings. An example of this is when you heard Bush talk about nation building in Iraq then suddenly Rumseld in an interview with NY Times states that he doesn't believe it's the US job to rebuild Iraq. I'm sorry, you can't walk away from a situation half-finished. Regarding that war, I'm not entirely against it. An evil dictator has been disposted. His threat was GREATLY exaggerated but he has many innocent peoples blood on his hands, a lot of them were his own people. The fact the US chose to invade Iraq to dispose of a despotic dictator, a country with the biggest oil reserves in the world but chose to leave Zimbabwe, Sudan, Ivory Coast etc alone does give a hint at what really drove them there.
He needs to work on his foreign policy again. This 'If you're not with us, you're against us' attitude resonates a siege type mentality and we all know what happens to a city under siege, the population is isolated and eventually starved. The US Government are not 100% to blame for the rift with Europe. The French & German Government's reasons for not backing the war are not entirely innocent & involve oil too. Their Government's are equally as pig-headed as the US. The Western World cannot afford this in-fighting, there are totalitarian governments in the East rubbing their hands with glee at this.
Despite all this, I'm in two minds as to whether to include Bush at all. He isn't the first president that declared war (even if war wasn't 'officially' declared) on a nation that had not attacked the US or was an 'immediate' threat to the US. FDR did it against Germany, Truman did it in Korea, Kennedy in Vietnam (although mostly unwittingly it has to be said), Johnston escilated that war to an extreme the US had never imagined. Yet all but one of those wars, maybe two, had a noble cause and are looked upon on history as the right thing to do. I'm going to wait until this war is over before I judge what category Iraq falls into.
Lastly, but most importantly, his term is not over yet. Before I throw him into the pit of 'worst' presidents, I want to see if he can save & redeem some of the recent situations he has found himself in. Second Term is usually most productive.
On TRUELY worst I believe the honour is shared by 4.
Richard Nixon - need you ask?
U.S. Grant - corrupt as hell
Warren Harding - used his position to do absolutely NOTHING
James Buchanen - sat back & waved hello to secession.
Naming Clinton as one of your worst presidents is a bad politically-motivated mistake. In recent times he had done more than any other, possibly in 50 years, to build bridges across the world. Ofcourse I talk merely of foreign policy as that, as I've said, is what a non-US national sees most often. He virtually single0handedly, brought Peace here in Northern Ireland. He did a great deal for this little country and for that, I offer him my defence and time, which is all I can do.
Probably Reagan. Nearly put us into another depression with his damned Reaganomics, turned the Republican party to the party of Christianity, "Star Wars," etc.
Ugh.
We need another Roosevelt.
First of all, Reaganomics pulled us out of a recession. Ask someone who was around when Carter was president about the "Misery Index".
Second--please, please, please don't pull that "war for oil" ... line... again. You'd think if we were going to war for oil, we'd have actually taken some? If we wanted oil that badly, we could have just done like France, Germany, and Russia, and sold him a few weapons for a good contract.
And in all three of the wars you mentioned, the United States helped our allies to fend off invasion by a out-and-out horrific regime (except in Vietnam, where we started to and then betrayed our allies)
And Clinton got a spot on the bottom because he earned it--just a few of the reasons are mentioned in my earlier post.
http://maddox.xmission.com/tictacs.html
I love Maddox.
The Shah of Iran was an incredibly brutal regime. To say that Carter was a bad president because he 'betrayed' them is absurd. Judging by that statement, it certainly seems that you would be willing to support a dictator of a foreign country in exchange for a good economy and cheap oil.Quote:
Jimmy Carter, whose betrayal of the Shah allowed Khomeini and his goons to take over Iran, whose general wussiness with the Arab nations brought about an oil crises, and whose government policies gave us a thoroughly nasty recession.
Hoover gets a bad rap and wasn't really at fault for the depression as much as everyone thinks he was. He waited too long to try to fix the problem, but he's blamed way too much for something he couldn't really control.
Andrew Jackson was a pretty crazy guy, but he wouldn't qualify as one of the worst presidents. I'd have to say that title would belong to one of the forgettables.
Actually, the Shah of Iran was deposed for its progressive reforms--perhaps you've noticed that his replacement doesn't exactly spend his time dancing in fields of flowers with his adoring subject. So perhaps you could drop the accusations in exchange for actual debate on the matter?Quote:
The Shah of Iran was an incredibly brutal regime. To say that Carter was a bad president because he 'betrayed' them is absurd. Judging by that statement, it certainly seems that you would be willing to support a dictator of a foreign country in exchange for a good economy and cheap oil.
Clinton gets to be on the bottom for that? :laugh:
He did a lot of good. You complain about high taxes? I say at least he got us into a surplus that was needed. You either have to cut spending(which was not going to happen) or you raise taxes. It is going to have to happen again after W is out just to get us out of the massive hole he has made.
All those other things are piddly in comparision to what others have done. He is far far far away from the worst there has been. Not the greatest but far from the worst.
Andrew Johnson, he totally mishandled the reconstruction of the south, and practically patted the KKK, Jim crow laws, and the slavery then known as share cropping on the back. A strong President wouldnt have let the South get out of control again. It was disgraceful.
Good lord, man... Are u an American or a Confederate. Or do u just forget the rapage of the African-American people the Confederates fought so hard to defend.Quote:
Originally Posted by The redneck
... Wasnt it his policies that brought of out of the depression, wait u dont have to answer that because i know if u talk to any economist its yes. Maybe he shouldnt have set the new deal and just left 13,000,000 people, who were out of work when he entered office, to starve, instead of giving them jobs. (sarcasm)Oh, and social sercurity that was horrible, set us back 10 years, huh... (/sarcasm)Quote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
"First of all, Reaganomics pulled us out of a recession. Ask someone who was around when Carter was president about the "Misery Index"."
I disagree with you entirely there, but that's also due to the fact that we have established we travel in very different circles.
Worst President, would probably be Nixon, who set politics, the government, and the governments relations to its own citizens back a good 30 years. Even today, the vast majority of the citizens of this country are still untrusting of the government, and much of it is linked back to Watergate.
Also on the list of what I'd call Sub Par Jobs By Presidents:
Warren Harding
Andrew Johnson
Franklin Pierce
W's legacy is still up in the air. If, and it's a very big if, Iraq becomes a stable democracy, it could trigger a great wave of change, but if it falls completely into chaos or the insurgents are not beaten down, it may be just another war that had mixed intentions and few real net gains.
As for those on the other end of the spectrum in my opinion:
Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, and Teddy Roosevelt
Kennedy's Presidency didn't last long enough to get a truly accurate view of everything he planned to do, Reagan's policies made him the second most polarized president ever, second only to our current occupant, but both had qualities that raise them greatly above the likes of a Nixon.
Here's a poll conducted in 1996 by 30 Historians which rates the Presidencies:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...hlesinger.html
Take care all.
...Wow. I advise you to not put your complete faith in radical websites and the odd book and read a few history texts from more objective sources. If FDR had not put his economic changes in place, WWII wouldn't have gotten us out of the Depression(especially the ones concerning the stock exchange and credit - the biggest reasons for the Depression in the first place). I'd also like to point out that after FDR and Truman, we were already well on our way out of the Depression, well before Reagan.Quote:
Abraham Lincoln, who invaded and annexed the Confederate States of America, engaged in brutal repression in his own nation, ordered Sherman's March to the Sea, and ushered in the most brutal rape of a nation that the United States--or most other nations, for that matter--have ever engaged in.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose actions prolonged and worsened the Great Depression, and added to Stalin's power, causing problems that it would take decades to solve and cause untold repression before then.
While I do think Bush is a horrible President, probably in the top 5, he was not the worst.
Andrew Jackson: think Kerry's a flip-flopper? This guy was so much worse. The main reason this guy was nuts is that he completely disregarded a Supreme Court decision and forced the Indians around Georgia to pick up and make the "March of Tears" to the west. He was creditted to have said, "Let Marshall enforce it," or something similarly abominable. He gets my vote for worst president.
Also, on the Tariff of Abominations: Jackson originally got this made a bill solely to make Quincy Adams look bad(because Adams had beaten Jackson at the last election). On the next election, Jackson won because he said he'd repeal the Tariff. When he got in office, he didn't. Talk about underhanded, dirty tactics. He even betrayed his own party(which is why even The Redneck doesn't like this guy).
Andrew Johnson: comes in at #2, this guy completely ignored the South after the Civil War. Instead of reforming the Union, he let the South become poorer and even more lawless. He was impeached on a technicality, but not convicted.
Herbert Hoover: This guy comes in at #3 not for any specific action he did; in fact, the past two Republican Presidents were probably much worse(and would have done much worse in his place), but Hoover had the misfortune to be the wrong President at the wrong time. He did nothing to cause the Great Depression, but he sure as hell didn't do anything to end it. He kept spouting that private charities were responsible for helping the poor, starving families, and was quoted to have said, "If people were dying of starvation, I'd give money to the states." This was after thousands had already died. Refused to hand out government "charity" and only reluctantly lent some money to the states.
Now, for Presidents that I think did a marvelous job:
Lincoln
Teddy Roosevelt
Franklin Roosevelt
Presidents I like even though they weren't spectacular(because they were put in a tough spot or just had a lot of bad luck):
Truman
Grant(a hopeless President, just because he was too honest for Washington).
Kennedy
This wasn't passed by Jackson at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
1. In 1824, Congress had increased the general tariff from 23% to 37%, but wool manufactures still wanted higher tariffs.
2. In the Tariff of 1828, the Jacksonians schemed to drive up duties to as high as 45% while imposing heavy tariffs on raw materials like wool, so that even New England, where it was needed, would vote the bill down and give Adams another political black eye.
a. However, the New Englanders spoiled the plan and passed the law (amended).
First of all, CSA was never officially a seperate nation. It was a rebellion. And quite frankly I can think of many worse "rapes of nations than Reconstruction. Namely being a Satilite state of the USSR (oh you no like Stalin? -- off to Siberia), or part of the Japanese Empire during WW2 (hint hint the army took "comfort women", and made them sex slaves). Sherman's March was only to force the south to surrender. Reconstruction wasn't the greatest thing ever, in fact it was just more or less taking money from the South and transferring it to wealthy bankers in the North. At any rate, Lincoln was dead before Reconstruction, so any fault would lie with Andrew Johnson.Quote:
Abraham Lincoln, who invaded and annexed the Confederate States of America, engaged in brutal repression in his own nation, ordered Sherman's March to the Sea, and ushered in the most brutal rape of a nation that the United States--or most other nations, for that matter--have ever engaged in.
Coolidge.
And yes, there have been presidents other than the ones who are made historically prominent because of events surrounding their time in office. And Coolidge IS the worst. He didn't do anything but fish, and he made himself a lame duck when he was first inaugurated by saying nothing would motivate him to seek a second term.
Just because someone doesn't handle a crisis doesn't mean their merits and demerits can be overlooked. :p
I believe all presidents, even the "bad" ones have done at least one thing good and effective deed during their presidencies, except for one: William Henry Harrison. He did absolutely nothing as president except catch pneumonia and promptly die.
I was going to say the same thing that foa did, but my history was rusty and I didn't want to be wrong.
Jackson still was the one who schemed to have the Tariff of Abominations passed in order to lower Adams in the eyes of his party, and Jackson won the next election on the basis that he promised to repeal the Tariff, and didn't. He then went on to ignore Supreme Court orders, illegally remove the Georgian Indians, and a whole bunch of other things that I can't remember off the top of my head.Quote:
Originally Posted by Azar
I think Andrew Jackson was a horrible person. :D But I just wanted to point out that wasn't a bill he passed as president.
He didn't pass it, but it was still his bill. Bloody bastard.
Oh, another bad one: Rutherford B. Hayes, who bribed the South to get him elected. "Hey, South, elect me and I'll remove the last vestiges of order from the south and you'll be left to your own devices. Now, slavery's illegal now, so don't be taking advantage of those poor black fellows. I'm not actually going to pay any attention, so it'll be on your honor. Have fun trying to rebuild all by yourselves! I'll be busy up here doing sod all."
Kinda like Andrew Johnson, but more political and double-talking. He wasn't as spiteful as Johnson, though.
I was going to say what he said :pQuote:
Originally Posted by DocFrance
Herein, I disagree--and I believe the facts support me. You lower taxes--the people, now free to spend their own money without having it confiscated, don't lock it all in a vault so they can swim in it like Scrooge McDuck when they're feeling blue but put it back into the economy so they can make more money. The economy improves, and with a larger pool to draw money from revenues grow.Quote:
You complain about high taxes? I say at least he got us into a surplus that was needed. You either have to cut spending(which was not going to happen) or you raise taxes.
While the national debt grew during Reagan's term, it was because spending spiralled out of control (Reagan's budget proposals were proudly anounced Dead On Arrival in the Democrat-controlled Congress), not a lack of revenue--in fact, revenue more than doubled during that eight years. Revenue has likewise grown after Bush's tax cuts (although, unfortunately, so has spending), and after JFK's tax cuts.
Sorry, but this is completely false. The Confederates did not, in any way, shape, or form, fight to defend slavery--a fact which both sides were well aware of at the time. General Lee, for example, had inherited slaves but set them free long before the war began--while General Grant refused to set his free even after the war. Lincoln made it clear that he South would be his property--if he had to free all the slaves to do it; if he could do it without freeing any slaves, or if he had to free some slaves but could keep others enslaved--and Grant said that if he thought for a moment the war was about slavery he would resign his commission and give his sword to the other side. That's why the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to slaves in areas "in a state of rebel insurrection"--Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, and Kentucky, for example, didn't have to give theirs up until 1865 when it was added to our Constitution.Quote:
Good lord, man... Are u an American or a Confederate. Or do u just forget the rapage of the African-American people the Confederates fought so hard to defend.
Actually, the economists I've heard from say he only made it worse, and that it's flatly obvious World War II brought us out of the depression.Quote:
... Wasnt it his policies that brought of out of the depression, wait u dont have to answer that because i know if u talk to any economist its yes.
Actually, he set in place a program wherein the government takes money from one person by force and gives it to another. This set us back significantly more than 10 years--and the system itself is on its way to collapse.Quote:
h, and social sercurity that was horrible, set us back 10 years, huh...
Wha-huh? If I gave the impression that Ronaldus Maximus got us out of the Great Depression, than I apologize. However, he did get us out of a situation that may indeed have spiraled into another depression--interest rates in the 20's, inflation in the double-digits, "stagflation", the "misery index"--it warn't pretty.Quote:
I'd also like to point out that after FDR and Truman, we were already well on our way out of the Depression, well before Reagan.
Captain--
Interesting poll, but I don't know how they came up with McKinley, who probably did more to allow/encourage the Depression than anyone else involed with it, as a "high average" or Jackson, who was without a doubt the most corrupt president in history, as "near great", while Reagan lingers behind Bush.
The CSA was officially a seperate nation as of March 11, 1861--by which time they had formed a government, elected leaders, and adopted a constitution.Quote:
First of all, CSA was never officially a seperate nation. It was a rebellion.
So can I--which is why I said "most" rather than "any" or even "almost any". If I gave the impression that the rape and desecration of the South suffered via Sherman and Reconstruction were singular events, I apologize.Quote:
nd quite frankly I can think of many worse "rapes of nations than Reconstruction.
Which required the burning of homes, the murder of civilians, theft on a widespread scale, rape, and grave-desecration? "Suicide" bombers and Iraqi "insurgents" claim a noble cause too--that doesn't mean that their actions are excusable or even that their cause really is noble.Quote:
Sherman's March was only to force the south to surrender.
Thus, "ushered in" rather than "presided over". You're not the only one to get a little confused over that, judging by the other posts, so next time I'll make sure to look over it again and make sure I'm sayin' what I think I'm sayin'.Quote:
At any rate, Lincoln was dead before Reconstruction, so any fault would lie with Andrew Johnson.
He had my vote next. [img]http://home.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/heart.gif[/img]Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
You mean kind of like now...wait. That isn't what is happening. What you said about lower taxes works only in theory and has yet to actually work. While what you say isn't exactly false, it also isn't true either. There needs to be a balance. You can't have low taxes all the time. If you do then your debt will spiral out of control like it did during Regan and both Bushes. Usually this leads to inflation and a weaker currency. A weaker currency can be nice but if it is also an unstable currency then it is bad for the economy in general as Foriegners will be less likely to invest. Having high taxes doesn't really encourage spending but it can help combat inflation and a weak currency. It also helps to make a currency a bit more stable as people are confident in it. It also gives you the ability to lower taxes to a nice rate and still keep everything balanced. Also if any big disasters occur it can help out a lot by not increasing a deficit or debt due to the surplus.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
In the end it is a good idea to have a mix of both and to know when to use low taxes and high taxes to help move the economy and country in a stable and correct direction.
Clinton's high taxes were a good move because of how the economy was booming. They wanted to let it grow but not get out of control. High taxes gives people less to spend and thus really wouldn't be doing tons of investing. Despite high taxes over investment still occured. He did the right thing to try and prevent another stock collapse but it just was inevitable(if this was his intention or not, it was still the correct thing to do).
He did worse things than waergate.I hate him too i also hate Bush.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pauten
Actually, it is. Revenue is growing, like as a result of Reagan's tax cuts--and like during Reagan's administration, spending is growing even faster. Revenue more than doubled during Reagan's administration--the problem wasn't that our government didn't have enough money to work with, it's that they they still managed to spend way too much.Quote:
You mean kind of like now...wait. That isn't what is happening.
Reagan, on one hand, had a Democrat-controlled congress that cheerfully announced his budget proposals DOA as soon as they hit the floor. Bush, on the other hand, should have it fairly easy as far as reducing spending, and hasn't even tried. The average president vetoes five bills a year--Bush has yet to veto a single spending bill, which is getting the conservatives who voted for him rather pissed off.
It's a good idea to confiscate more of people's money so that the economy doesn't grow quickly?Quote:
Clinton's high taxes were a good move because of how the economy was booming. They wanted to let it grow but not get out of control.
Damn you foa for stealing my answer. Coolidge was almost certainly the worst President (except maybe WHH who got pneumonia from speaking so long in the rain at his inauguration and promptly died.) Coolidge's policies had much more to do with the great Depression than Hoover, who basically inherited an economy headed south. It's also ironic to note that Coolidge was Reagan's favorite President.Quote:
Originally Posted by fire_of_avalon
The CSA was only deemed an official nation because countries in Europe still wanted to weaken the US and of course agreed to honor the Confederacy. Of course, they did do the constitution, elect a government, have coinage, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
But he (or at least Seward) purchased Alaska during his tenure in office, so that's one positive.Quote:
Originally Posted by CloudSquallandZidane
While Watergate tarnished his legacy and lost him the office, Nixon had some great achievements like opening diplomatic relations with China. I consider Nixon more of a flawed but good President than a bad President.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pauten
Except that when the very rich, who already have more money than they need, suddenly get even more because their taxes are cut, they go spend it on yachts and Maybachs and other superluxury items that never trickle down to the workforce because these are items sold with huge profit margins basically for the purpose of giving rich people something to spend their money on. This extra money just circulates between the hands of various ultra-wealthy. While cutting taxes on lower and middle income earners does positively impact the economy, sweeping cuts off the top (like George W Bush has implemented) do nothing to stimulate the economy at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
This economy is barly recovering and it is not due to his tax cuts. His tax cuts have done nothing to help out our economy right now. As a matter of fact one could argue they hurt the economy due to massive deficits and an alarmingly weaker currency. The economy is not even to the level when he took office yet or is just barly over that level. This is the natural cycle of the economy and the president does not have a great deal of control over it. The pres can help here and there but the Pres does not make or break the economy. That is the Fed's job(Al Greenspan pretty much).Quote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
They spent way too much during Regan because of him. He expanded the government and created way too much buracracy.
As for Clinton. Yeah. He should have done that so the economy doesn't grow to quickly. As a matter of fact it grew so quickly it imploded to some extent even though taxes where high. As I said before, the Pres really doesn't have a great deal of control over the economy. It has its cycles, up and down.
Add what Eest said because that is also true. Sorry but the rich don't need a tax cut. If you make more than $200,000 a year you are more than well off.
Actually, there was a time when Congress believed the same--so they put up a huge luxury tax, and several thousand people were put out of work when the yacht industry went through the floor.Quote:
Except that when the very rich, who already have more money than they need, suddenly get even more because their taxes are cut, they go spend it on yachts and Maybachs and other superluxury items that never trickle down to the workforce because these are items sold with huge profit margins basically for the purpose of giving rich people something to spend their money on.
Meanwhile, sweeping cuts at the top have the most effect, because that's where most of the taxes are collected. The top 1% of wage-earners fund 17% of the government. The "very rich" didn't get that way by blowing money on superluxury items, they got that way by carefully investing their money--these are the folks that get things built and people hired, which is why whenever you "soak the rich" you end up screwing the little guys.
Edczx, I'm not sure where you get the idea that confiscating less of people's money has no effect on the economy. If the federal reserve controlled it, then it would have gone through the roof when Greenspan dropped the hell out of the interest rates.
Well, I'll bite--where did Reagan expand the government and create beaurocracy?Quote:
They spent way too much during Regan because of him. He expanded the government and created way too much buracracy.
Excuse me? Where do you get off telling someone "you've got enough money, you don't have a right to any more"? "The Rich" get flat-out screwed under our tax system, and if we're going to reduce the amount of money which the government takes from its citizens by force, than it's morally imperative that we reduce the robbery most where it's taking place most.Quote:
Add what Eest said because that is also true. Sorry but the rich don't need a tax cut. If you make more than $200,000 a year you are more than well off.
And taxes are robbery. You pay it, or someone comes to your house with a gun to collect it. Taxes (although not income tax) are a necessary evil. but that doesn't make it a good thing. On the contrary, it's a bad thing, and as such should be done as little as possible.
Andrew Jackson was the worst. You want imperialist aggression, lookit this guy who evicted an entire nation from their homes at night at gunpoint and gave the land to greedy other people who had no claim to it in the first place.
And yet, he's still on the $20 dollar bill. Go figure.
Take care all.
That doesn't make it okay.Quote:
Sherman's March was only to force the south to surrender.
He never said that. He said that if you make enough money you don't deserve a tax cut. Not "If you make enough money you don't have the right to any more" Those are two completely different statements and you completely twisted his words.Quote:
Excuse me? Where do you get off telling someone "you've got enough money, you don't have a right to any more"?
I disagree. We should reduce the robbery where it is doing the most damage. The rich may pay alot of taxes, but they will always be well off. Cutting taxes for the poor before cutting taxes for the rich is the morally right thing to do.Quote:
The Rich" get flat-out screwed under our tax system, and if we're going to reduce the amount of money which the government takes from its citizens by force, than it's morally imperative that we reduce the robbery most where it's taking place most.
uh, thankyou everyone ... also , do you think Al Gore would make a good President ?
A luxury tax is completely unrelated to what I'm talking about. I'm saying that the extra money we are giving to the top 1% of earners through these cuts does not help the little guys because it basically gets handed from one rich person to another.
If you think the income tax is robbery (and I know more than a few people do) then you should go move to a country that taxes at a very low rate and in return provides almost no government. You might like it better there, if you can find such a place.
Well, in my mind it was the same kinda thing as the decision to nuke Japan in WW2. If they had to invade and concour all of the Japanese islands at the end of WW2, the war could have lasted another 10 years, and killed another couple of thousand American troops. A general (or whoever else is in charge of the war) is charged with winning the war with as few of his soldiers dead as possible. If it were possible to get the same results with lesser means, then that's what should have happened. I suspect that without Sherman's March, the civil war may have lasted another 5 or so years, and the results would have been the same South is returned to the US, the only differnce is that more soldiers on both sides die.Quote:
Originally Posted by nik0tine
I'll be back with research tomarrow...maybe I will even make a new thread. What I have found so far is pretty interesting.
Well though we both know that saying the Southern States didnt succeed because Lincoln halted the expansion of slavery, and they didnt succeed from the union in order to keep their "pecular institution" around, is a huge fallacy i will provide u with evidence from South Carolina's own declaration of succession in which you will see clearly how they refer to the Northern States as "the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States." among other obvious pro-slavery references. I will skip to the main part that proves my point you may read the whole declaration atQuote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
South Carolina Declaration of Succession
So u see it was a signifigant part of their reasoning for leaving the Union. I hope u understand ALL of what that flag u in ur sig represents.Quote:
Originally Posted by South Carolina Declaration of Succession
December 24, 1860
Also note how the Union states were refered to repeatedly as non-slave holding This is definative proof that slavery was a MAJOR issue. I could underline and embolden more, but im getting tired.
EDIT:
The estimations at the time of casualties invading the Japanese mainland were upwards of 100,000 American soldiers lives, atleast. Thats enough justification in my mind to drop the bomb. Also Shemans march was MORE than crucial in the Souths surrender, the cut off of supplies and the destruction, were absolutely critical. Had he not done it, and done it so well, we could be saluting Redneck's flag, well i wouldnt, id probably be a slave.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnostic Yevon
Shermans march was actually okay in my opinion.But it would've sucked to serve under general Grant.That guy's stragedy was to send everyone running in the open field towards the other side and hope some people made it.In the end the american civil war was the worst american war.More americans died in that war than any other americans combined with all the other wars we've had.Quote:
Originally Posted by nik0tine
Just some nice interesting charts about the the revenues recieved by the federal government and how they have spent over the years. GW is the WORST! I knew he was bad and everything but DAMN!
The projections are scary but there is always time to fix it.
http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...harts_C/c3.cfm
Actually, saying so is common sense, backed up by simple observation. Especially since Lincoln made it very clear, more than once, that he had no desire to oppose slavery.Quote:
Well though we both know that saying the Southern States didnt succeed because Lincoln halted the expansion of slavery, and they didnt succeed from the union in order to keep their "pecular institution" around, is a huge fallacy
And since slavery existed under the US flag for more than 70 years, I suppose that means you direct the same unreasoning hatred at the United States?Quote:
I hope u understand ALL of what that flag u in ur sig represents.
While slavery did indeed exist in many areas of the US, and conditions were little if any better for black people elsewhere in the nation, four references in a document of several pages does not a document about slavery make. Sorry, but the race-card has no sway here--especially considering the Civil War was an invasion ordered by a man made rich off of inherited slave-trading money and carried out by a slaveowner.
And the rape? The theft? The grave desecration? Sherman's acts go far, far beyond acts of war.Quote:
Also Shemans march was MORE than crucial in the Souths surrender, the cut off of supplies and the destruction, were absolutely critical.
Said saluting is far better than praising the rapine and slaughter of a bunch of yankee Huns, but slavery was on its way out for a variety of reasons--among them religious, cultural, and economic. Britain, France, Mexico--in fact most nations of the world--engaged in slavery and do so no longer, and in not one single one of these instances was a war necessary to achieve the end of this abominable institution. But somehow, the United States was unique here?Quote:
Had he not done it, and done it so well, we could be saluting Redneck's flag, well i wouldnt, id probably be a slave.
Actually, a luxury tax affects exactly that "handed from one rich person to another" theory you were espousing. And as I noted, it obviously does help the "little guys" because when that 'extra money' was reduced, thousands of people ended up without jobs. Moreover...Quote:
A luxury tax is completely unrelated to what I'm talking about. I'm saying that the extra money we are giving to the top 1% of earners through these cuts does not help the little guys because it basically gets handed from one rich person to another.
Giving? Giving? Stealing less money from someone is not "giving" them anything, nor is money that someone earned "extra money".Quote:
I'm saying that the extra money we are giving to the top 1% of earners through these cuts
So if you make enough money you still deserve what you earn, except that government should take away more of it?Quote:
He never said that. He said that if you make enough money you don't deserve a tax cut. Not "If you make enough money you don't have the right to any more" Those are two completely different statements and you completely twisted his words.
Actually, "the poor" pay 0 in taxes already, along with a significant chunk of the middle class. The poorer half of the nation pays something like 5% of government revenues--in other words, they're already recieving services paid for by the "eeeeevil rich", so the morally right thing to do is quit stealing from the persons being stolen from, not to give more of that money to the persons recieving it.Quote:
I disagree. We should reduce the robbery where it is doing the most damage. The rich may pay alot of taxes, but they will always be well off. Cutting taxes for the poor before cutting taxes for the rich is the morally right thing to do.
But I'm saying that the only reason they can spend this extra money is because they were granted a tax cut. A luxury tax is a consumption based tax, and we are discussing an income based tax.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
Well, "the poor" don't pay income tax because they hardly have income and what little they have is usually below exemption levels or the EITC, but I assure you they pay plenty of other taxes.Quote:
Actually, "the poor" pay 0 in taxes already, along with a significant chunk of the middle class.
Clearly we just have a fundamental disagreement about the role of government in society. Neither view is technically right or wrong, but the two approaches lead to drastically different societies.
No. I'm afraid I must disagree in the strongest terms possible. The reason they can spend this 'extra' money is because they earned it, not because they were granted anything. Wealth does not come from the government.Quote:
But I'm saying that the only reason they can spend this extra money is because they were granted a tax cut.
Money was taken away from rich people by the government. This is a tax on the rich.Quote:
A luxury tax is a consumption based tax, and we are discussing an income based tax.
It isn't that people who make a lot of money don't deserve to keep what they make but by being so fortunate they must give up a slight bit of what they have so that the whole country can function better. That or we can raise taxes across the board to cover the lack that is made for cutting the taxes from the rich. Then just so that people can survive salaries would have to be raised across the board just so we don't increase the poverty % greatly. In then end we hurt buisness, the poor and lower middle class while we give the rich an extra 2-3%. Or we could cut away tons of things from our budget. Lets get rid of Medicad, Social Security and the Defense Budget. Or we could legalize drugs and tax theout of it. There are other things we can do to get the money. To bad everyone in the government is in the pocket of buisness so nothing gets done.
I am not saying it can't be done but just not very easily. If you look at the projections for spending in the future it doesn't look good. The government in short needs massive reform on both sides. We need to get out of other countries buisness until we can get ourselves under control.
Also you comment about the American flag being just as racist as the Confederate flag due to the more than 70 years of slavery under the flag...yeah. The American flag STOOD for it at some point(notice the past tense) while the confederate flag STANDS for it(notice the present tense). Since the confederate was taken out while it still stood for slavery it shall always stand for it.
well, we could debate how they "earned" it if you want to take that route. Or the role the government played in facilitating that earning, ie the government provides and maintains the infrastructure necessary for our economy to function at all, police protection, education to provide competent workers, etc. Or the morality of having wealth in the first place.
I may "earn" all the money I get in my paycheck, but I can't just refuse to pay my landlord because I think he takes too much of my money. I could, but I'd have to move out. Paying taxes is the cost of living in the society we have and reaping the benefits of living here. You can't get around that unless you want to move to another country, or unless you can manage to change this country to fit your desires.
edit: I'd have to agree with The Redneck that for the "North" to mock the "South" as being institutionally racist is pretty hypocritical. All were guilty of such things at that time, and quite frankly, having lived in both the deep south and the industrial midwest, I'd say the south has done at least as good a job coming to terms with and addressing the problems of racism as the rest of the country.
I don't deny that they have tried to combat racism just as much as the rest of the country. That still doesn't change what the confederate flag stood and stands for.
You also come up with some great economic arguements that I need to write down :D
Why is the gap between rich and poor widening, both in terms of the rich to poor ratio and the difference between the property owned by either? Something to think about, given our current economic plan.
The problem being, neither flag stood or stands for slavery. Both nations allowed it, but support of neither nation did or does mean support of slavery. Again--sorry, but the race-card still has no sway here.Quote:
.yeah. The American flag STOOD for it at some point(notice the past tense) while the confederate flag STANDS for it(notice the present tense).
Actually, experience has proven that cutting taxes from the rich brings about more revenue, since people who have money are able to invest it rather than having it stolen from them. And a far more viable option is for the government to get out of matters that don't concern it. Our federal government is incredibly bloated, and stealing yet more money from its citizens is the worst solution we could implement.Quote:
That or we can raise taxes across the board to cover the lack that is made for cutting the taxes from the rich.
Police (and military protection) and various vital parts of our infrastructure make up a very small percentage of what our government spends (and seeing as a) the government does not have the right nor the duty to take away our money to set up schools and b) the government does an absolutely abysmal job at it, I don't list education as one of the boons granted by our government)--if you were to get rid of what's basically useless crap (the best example that comes to mind is the National Endowment for the Arts, but pork-barrel spending abounds, and unfortunately there's plenty to be found on both sides of the aisle) and make the eeeeeevil rich pay for the things we actually need, then they'd still end up saving huge amounts of money--which, in turn would go to hiring people and lowering prices to try and undercut their competitors.Quote:
Or the role the government played in facilitating that earning, ie the government provides and maintains the infrastructure necessary for our economy to function at all, police protection, education to provide competent workers, etc.
Being successful as something immoral? Not in this country.Quote:
Or the morality of having wealth in the first place.
Yes, you can. You can find a different landlord, or try to buy your own home, or try to work out an arrangement. When the government takes too much of your money, however, you have two choices--you can pay the money, or you can wait until the government sends men with guns to come get the money. This--the power to use force--is a power that resides solely with the government, and makes taxation a vastly different matter from a business arrangement such as renting a home.Quote:
I may "earn" all the money I get in my paycheck, but I can't just refuse to pay my landlord because I think he takes too much of my money.
And never did I say that no one should have to pay taxes--evil they may be, but they're a necessary evil. My problem is with taxes being raised far higher than they need to be, in order to provide "services" that a) do more harm than good, b) are horridly inefficient (like I mentioned earlier, nobody in their right mind would invest their money in a retirement fund that gives 1-2% interest and no guarantees that you'll get a dime of it--much less how much you get or when you get it--or donate to a charity that gets about 28 cents on the dollar to the people it's designed to help, but that's Social Security and welfare in a nutshell) and c) the government has no right or duty to provide. "The Rich" already pay in vast disproportion for the services provided to everyone, and it's high time we quit punishing achievement.Quote:
Paying taxes is the cost of living in the society we have and reaping the benefits of living here.
And I too have had to live in the midwest (horrible, awful, nasty place), and I saw far more racism and subtle segregation in Illinois (and Maryland, which I've visited) than I ever saw in Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, or Georgia, where I've lived, or in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, North and South Carolina, or Virginia, which I have visited or passed through.
because of the decline in the power of labor unions and the breakdown of collective bargaining. Labor unions are the only force that can truly keep big business in check (well the government could try, but that's not a great idea). It's no coincidence that the beginning of the weakening of the labor movement in the 1970s coincides with the increasing stratification of wealth.
Who says success has anything to do with wealth? There are plenty of ways to become successful without becoming rich.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
Anyway, being taxed more highly is the cost of being rich in the United States. I think most people given the choice between being rich and taxed heavily, or being poor and taxed lightly, would choose to be rich and taxed.
The basis of the civl war was caused by whenever there was a new state or territory.They wanted to decide on rather it was a free state or a slave state.To tell me that the civil war wasn't over slavery is stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by eestlinc
Well Redneck plz read the letter of Succession from South Carolina, that is word for word the exact declaration of their sucession from the Union and their reasoning as to why. How can u possibly deny that? It clearly states keeping slavery around was a main concern. Hell i cant even argue with facts. So how can u?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
Well, the United States changed its ways it now stands for freedom of all people, as opposed to ur flag which represents hatred, racism, and slavery. So therefore i stand by the U.S. government of today, not the one influenced by the southern states, u so adamently defend. Based on the rules back then slavery could not have been abolished, because the slave owners of the south had soo much power in the government, but the Northern States did their best to abolish slavery, once again it says it in the letter of Succession i posted. Just because i only emboldened 4 parts doesnt mean thats all there is. Also the document wasnt several pages, it was very short really, click on the link i posted see for urself.
Did i play the race card? I dont remember saying anything about u trying to opress me because im black... I simply was refering to the fact that if the Confederacy did win, based on the way the South was going its obvious slavery would have been legalized everywhere, do u doubt that? And i think that would be a few steps back fromAlso to prove that that the Confederate Government wasnt going to abolish slavery, i take an quote from their Constiution Section IX from which it statesQuote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
Also allow me to illude to another confederate document commonly know as the "Cornstone speech" by Alexander H. Stephens explaing to the people the provisions of the Confederate Constitution, allow me to give u another example:Quote:
Originally Posted by Constitution of the Confederacy: Section IX
Quote:
But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind—from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just—but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal."
As long as u support the Confederacy, while u know their policies toward the millions of Blacks they kept as slaves, then u sir have no right to speak against rape or theft or anykind of desecration. I'm NOT sorry if i dont feel any pity toward those who would support, a government that allows slavery to exist within its borders. The Union did what it had to do to end the war, and i wouldnt care if they smote the South to ashes and dust for what they were doing to people. Just like i wouldnt have cared if the U.S. dropped 10 nukes on Germany to beat them in WWII. Frankly the world is alot better off without these people.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
So i guess u wouldnt say the Nazi flag stood for hate and white supremacy, u'd just say it stood for Germany 1930s-1940s. Well i consider a flag that oppresses any group of people to stand for oppression of that same group of people. Just like i'd say since the US says everyone has freedom, the US flag stands for freedom. Doesnt that seem logical?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
I'm not american, but I think that Bush and his Daddy are the worst. Maybe this is because I don't know much background of all of the presidents, and so on. But, I despise him, personal opinion. I will also stop there before I go on ranting about how much I hate him.
Ahh--so other kinds of success are fine; only those that become wealthy, keep people employed, and provide goods and services need to be punished?Quote:
Who says success has anything to do with wealth? There are plenty of ways to become successful without becoming rich.
I did--that's why I was able to notice that a four references to an issue in a document of several pages does not make the document "about" slavery. Next?Quote:
Well Redneck plz read the letter of Succession from South Carolina, that is word for word the exact declaration of their sucession from the Union and their reasoning as to why.
Which is why the northern states made a fortune off of shipping slaves?Quote:
ased on the rules back then slavery could not have been abolished, because the slave owners of the south had soo much power in the government, but the Northern States did their best to abolish slavery,
Did I claim you said I was trying to oppress you because you're black? I wasn't even aware of your skin color, and was instead commenting on the fact that you feel a need to call your opponents racists, thus displaying that you don't have a leg to stand on and need to resort to ad hominem attacks. Which, in turn, is referred to as 'playing the race card'. There's a similar term referring to the similar comparing of your opponents to Hitler or the Nazis, referred to as 'playing the Nazi card', or as Reductio ad Hitlerum, which we'll see later on.Quote:
Did i play the race card? I dont remember saying anything about u trying to opress me because im black...
I simply was refering to the fact that if the Confederacy did win, based on the way the South was going its obvious slavery would have been legalized everywhere, do u doubt that? And i think that would be a few steps back from
Originally Posted by The Redneck:
...slavery was on its way out..
Considering that I noted that slavery was 'on its way out', it's fairly obvious that I do doubt that if the Confederacy did win slavery would have been legalized everywhere.
First, the Confederacy very obviously had no intentions of conquest. It was the Union which wanted to invade and rob blind its neighboring country, while the Confederate States were defending themselvs--thus the idea that the Confederacy would have imposed slavery 'everywhere' is ridiculous.
Like I noted, slavery was already nearly obsolete by the time of the Secession, and becoming more so, for cultural, religious (the reason that General Robert E. Lee set all of his slaves free long before the war, calling slavery a "moral and political evil"--likewise, the reason that so many southerners who couldn't and likely never would be able to afford even a single slave still fought for their country. This was not something that constricted general grant, for example, who said that if he had the slightest belief that the War of Northern Aggression was to end slavery, then he would have immediately surrendered his commission and given the other side his sword.), and economic reasons. As I also mentioned, nearly every nation in the world had slaves at one point in time, and nearly all of those halted this practice--without the need for a war. Yet somehow the US was unique in this?
Again, the part you allude to is a small portion of a large speech. Mr. Stephens notes several issues leading to the Secession. He was indeed a supporter of slavery, but so were many of our Founding Fathers, and this does not abolish their accomplishments (interestingly enough, one of slavery's most avid opponents, Thomas Jefferson (who referred to slavery as an offense of the King of Britain in the Declaration of Independence--the rest of the convention editted that part out), was a southerner.).Quote:
Also allow me to illude to another confederate document commonly know as the "Cornstone speech" by Alexander H. Stephens explaing to the people the provisions of the Confederate Constitution, allow me to give u another example:
Much like the United States supported the millions of blacks they kept as slaves--for 70 years, compared to the Confederacy's four....Quote:
As long as u support the Confederacy, while u know their policies toward the millions of Blacks they kept as slaves,
It is my hope that some day you are able to think past your hatred.Quote:
then u sir have no right to speak against rape or theft or anykind of desecration. I'm NOT sorry if i dont feel any pity toward those who would support, a government that allows slavery to exist within its borders. The Union did what it had to do to end the war, and i wouldnt care if they smote the South to ashes and dust for what they were doing to people. Just like i wouldnt have cared if the U.S. dropped 10 nukes on Germany to beat them in WWII. Frankly the world is alot better off without these people.
Ahh, there's the Reductio ad Hitlerum--I told ya that was comin'.Quote:
So i guess u wouldnt say the Nazi flag stood for hate and white supremacy, u'd just say it stood for Germany 1930s-1940s.
One of the great misconceptions of America is the belief that the gap between the rich and poor is getting smaller. In fact, the opposite is true, as the middle class of America is disappearing all together and the gap is widening. Giving tax breaks to the richest 5% of the country widens the gap because it allows for them to have added incentives not to pump their money back into the system, which is how the poor can prosper, because the more money they keep or withhold, the larger the tax break they can get under the current systems being put into place.
It's a lose- lose situation for the poor and a win-win for the rich, and since almost all the policies are created or influenced by the rich, it is a policy that is likely to remain for some time.
A big problem, The Redneck, with regard to the Confederate Flag, is that it has been used so many times with regards to the KKK and more than anything else, the fact that they use it as a symbol of their organization, because it represents breaking away from the country, which many KKK believe in, the image of the flag is more or less tarnished, even if that's not what it stands for. A flag is just a symbol, but the images, messages and people who have waved it carry a lot of weight as to how it is viewed or understood, even if these views aren't true.
Take care all.
I laugh redneck because you love to play with facts in history.All of what they said and what you said is true.The problem is none of you guys have stated that you acknowledged this.Now i said stated.I didn't say you didn't know.Now the whole thing was in fact over slavery.It was over which new territories will become free or slave.The north was highly industrialied and depended upon the south's raw materials in which slave labor was used.Now really only 2% of the population in the south benefitted form slave labor and they wanted to keep it that way.They were in fact the wealthiest southerners.Now the abolishment of slavery was just an end product of the civil war.Please acknowledge that.Because the other 98% of the southern population is what they were crackers.Poor white poeple.REally poor.Really dirty.The term cracker is a slang term that southerners called white poeple from georgia so really it wasn't made into a racial term until the 1950s.Anyway I hope that cleared some things up.On everyones behalf.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
That might be possible, but what I've heard is quite different. Where do you get that from?Quote:
One of the great misconceptions of America is the belief that the gap between the rich and poor is getting smaller. In fact, the opposite is true, as the middle class of America is disappearing all together and the gap is widening.
Actually, the case is the opposite. Higher taxes are a significant bite taken out of an already slim profit margin. Therefore, it's higher taxes that encourage people with money to sit on it rather than to basically invest it for someone else's profit. Investing is already a risky business, and when the stakes are lowered while the odds don't get any better, less people invest.Quote:
Giving tax breaks to the richest 5% of the country widens the gap because it allows for them to have added incentives not to pump their money back into the system, which is how the poor can prosper, because the more money they keep or withhold, the larger the tax break they can get under the current systems being put into place.
So has the US Flag. In fact, the KKK flew the US flag until the 1950's, meaning that it's been used longer than the Confederate flag. Likewise the cross, which so far as I'm aware the KKK has claimed since its founding in the 1860's. If someone wishes to let the KKK decide what they should believe, then they shouldn't be surprised when they end up believing some pretty screwed-up things.Quote:
A big problem, The Redneck, with regard to the Confederate Flag, is that it has been used so many times with regards to the KKK and more than anything else, the fact that they use it as a symbol of their organization,
And again, if 'the whole thing', 'a majority of the thing', or even 'a large part of the thing' was over slavery, then not only would the Secession not have taken place, but most of the soldiers of the Confederacy would never have bothered (Up to and including General E. Lee), and most of the Union wouldn't have bothered to attack (up to and including general grant. If the South hadn't been kicking Lincoln around so bad and he didn't fear the British stepping in to help, then the slaves wouldn't be free whether Lincoln won or not.Quote:
Now the whole thing was in fact over slavery.
"So has the US Flag. In fact, the KKK flew the US flag until the 1950's, meaning that it's been used longer than the Confederate flag. Likewise the cross, which so far as I'm aware the KKK has claimed since its founding in the 1860's. If someone wishes to let the KKK decide what they should believe, then they shouldn't be surprised when they end up believing some pretty screwed-up things."
One problem is, the Confederate flag is still the flag of choice used. It hasn't been outlawed like the US flag being used has. Part of the problem does deal with stereotyping, as the flag has taken on the role of representing people from the South who are generally stereotyped as Klan when that's not the case. The other problem is that since the flag isn't a nationally recognized flag any longer, the KKK can continue to use it with little protest since it's not viewed as one representing a great majority of people as the US flag is.
"That might be possible, but what I've heard is quite different. Where do you get that from?"
I believe the most recent census showed that the gap has widened as there are now fewer people that make in what is considered the "middle class range" as far is income and much more in the lower bracket. Those in the higher bracket have more money than the previous census, but there are fewer and fewer of them.
"Actually, the case is the opposite. Higher taxes are a significant bite taken out of an already slim profit margin. Therefore, it's higher taxes that encourage people with money to sit on it rather than to basically invest it for someone else's profit. Investing is already a risky business, and when the stakes are lowered while the odds don't get any better, less people invest."
But, if the tax money goes to worthy causes, whilst money gained at a lower tax is not pumped back into the economy but is instead spent on luxury items as MANY, MANY major compaines do (As Enron, Worldcom, Haliburton and various other investigations have shown), who does that help aside from the corrupt CEO's who get the biggest tax breaks?
Take care all.
Lordblazer save ur time, u cant bring RN out of his own little world of fallacies and support of the Confederacy.
America had every right to take back its land the Confederacy attempted to steal in order to protect their 'pecuilar institution' (note they refer to themselves as slaveholding states, and the North as non-slaveholding states, obviously not concidence) and form their own government, just like Britain would have had everyright to take back the colonies by force, though im glad they werent able to.
Also give up the riddiculous notion that they were going to end slavery in the south had the confederacy won. Ive shown u in the Confederacy's own constitution, that they would be prohibited from passing any laws that would even impair slavery EVER. And prohibited slavery at any one place in a country would have meant impairing slavery there, thus it would be legal everywhere the confederates controled.And if u beileve that they would not have forced the Union to join them had they won, u sir, might lack pretty common sense.
They werent countrymen they were traitors, and treasonists, who turned their back on their country, not seeking escape from religious persecution, gaining representation, or any possibly noble cause, they turned their back on their country so that they wouldnt have to pick their own crops, and to make sure millions of people stayed oppressed.
Once again id like to refer toQuote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
Why else would they abandon their country, what other reason did they have to turn their back on the flagQuote:
Originally Posted by South Carolina Declaration of Succession
December 24, 1860
(as it would seem u have, just from what u've posted and ur sig)?Plz i'd like to hear what u beileve their (sarcasm) noble (/sarcasm) fight was about. I know history, i read what they wrote first hand, and now im asking for ur interpretation.
EDIT: There is no need for comments like that. Just present your argument without taking shots at other members. -Murder
How much tax money goes to 'worthy causes'?Quote:
But, if the tax money goes to worthy causes,
First, money spent on luxury items still buys goods and services, and still employs people. Somebody's still got to make the yachts, hot tubs, and champaigne.Quote:
whilst money gained at a lower tax is not pumped back into the economy but is instead spent on luxury items as MANY, MANY major compaines do
More importnatly, the people who earn the money have the right to spend it on luxury items, if they wish. They have the right to give every cent to charity, or invest every penny of it to try to make more money, or leave it all to their cat, or whatever they want to do with it--it's their money, not the government's.
First, let me repeat the obvious, in that to claim the Confederacy seceeded in order to protect slavery is plainly false.Quote:
America had every right to take back its land the Confederacy attempted to steal in order to protect their 'pecuilar institution' (note they refer to themselves as slaveholding states, and the North as non-slaveholding states, obviously not concidence) and form their own government,
Second, secessioin was not, in any way, shape, or form, an act of theft. Secession was a right which every state had, and which several northern states almost used, and threatened to use, at earlier points in our nation's history.
Because, of course, nobody will do anything, even look out for their own self-interest, unless the government forces them to do it.....Quote:
Also give up the riddiculous notion that they were going to end slavery in the south had the confederacy won. Ive shown u in the Confederacy's own constitution, that they would be prohibited from passing any laws that would even impair slavery EVER.
Either that, or I took at look at the evidence; especially since there's not a shred of evidence to support the preposterous notion that had Lincoln's conquest failed the Confederacy would have returned the favor.Quote:
And if u beileve that they would not have forced the Union to join them had they won, u sir, might lack pretty common sense.
The Confederates exercised their right to leave a union which did not look out for their interests. This was not an attack against their nation, or an act against their nation at all, and thus the accusation of treason is plainly and blatantly false.Quote:
They werent countrymen they were traitors, and treasonists, who turned their back on their country,
If you'd actually read the speech you'd quoted bits and pieces of, you would have seen several reasons, among them that the southern states were being forced to pay for northern infrastructure and then forced through tariffs to support northern industry at their own expense, and the fact that Lincoln's victory without carrying a single southern state indicated quite clearly that the southern states no longer had any real amount of representation in the nation's government. Time to go back and do your research again.Quote:
hy else would they abandon their country, what other reason did they have to turn their back on the flag(as it would seem u have, just from what u've posted and ur sig)? Plz i'd like to hear what u beileve their (sarcasm) noble (/sarcasm) fight was about.
"How much tax money goes to 'worthy causes'?"
That depends on what you deem worthy causes. If you view strength of miliatary as a worthy cause, then a lot of tax money, especially under the current Administration goes to worthy causes. If however, you view the arts, the environment, social welfare, public works and the like as worthy causes also, then taxes have not been going to them recently.
"First, money spent on luxury items still buys goods and services, and still employs people. Somebody's still got to make the yachts, hot tubs, and champaigne.
More importnatly, the people who earn the money have the right to spend it on luxury items, if they wish. They have the right to give every cent to charity, or invest every penny of it to try to make more money, or leave it all to their cat, or whatever they want to do with it--it's their money, not the government's."
That, in a nutshell is the argument against Reaganomics. If you give the richest of the rich more money through tax breaks, it all relies on them as the individual to reinvest it into the market. However, most follow the logic that you pointed out yourself, in that they spend the money on themselves and the trickle down effect runs dry before anyone on the lower levels actually gets saturated.
Take care all.
I'd argue that we not only spend plenty but far more than enough money to such causes, but the other fact is that the military requires a government to direct it--whereas the government does not have the duty, nor the right to spend money that belongs to someone else on what it thinks are worthy causes.Quote:
If however, you view the arts, the environment, social welfare, public works and the like as worthy causes also,
That's not even counting the money the government wastes on little specialties like Piss Christ and The Holy Virgin Mary. After seeing public housing and public art, I'd rather pass on the government's other 'worthy causes'.
Except that a) history has proven that enough of them do get the money back into the economy, and b) the 'richest of the rich' do not live in a vacuum. Spending money on themselves still means that people get employed, and goods and services are bought.Quote:
That, in a nutshell is the argument against Reaganomics. If you give the richest of the rich more money through tax breaks, it all relies on them as the individual to reinvest it into the market. However, most follow the logic that you pointed out yourself, in that they spend the money on themselves and the trickle down effect runs dry before anyone on the lower levels actually gets saturated.
Most importantly, tax breaks do not 'give the richest of the rich more money'. To steal less money from someone is not to give them anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
Really and so i guess u'd say that if all the States that voted for Kerry succeeded from the U.S. then they'd have the right to, just because they didnt vote Bush into power? I just dont think thats right, i have problems with the process, but i still beileve its fair (enough).
No real amount of representation? They still had people in congress didnt they? Therefore they had representation, correct? Infact their representation was falsely inflated by the 3/5's compramise(they werent representing the slaves).
Also i guess u beileve they should have just left the North to collapse, instead of help their fellow countrymen. Im just not cold enough to beileve they would be justified in doing that. And i seriously doubt the tariffs were high enough to be crippling the Souths properous economy. Probably put a dent in the return the slaveowners got back, but why should they care they didnt pay their workers, i mean its not like they gave they health insurance.
They had all they wanted, representation, possibly more representation than my party has (since the repubs. control the House, Senate, White house, and soon if not already the Supreme Court), yet if the democrats broke away to form their own country, not only would they be charged with, convicted of, and possibly sentenced to death for treason, but it would be justifiably so. Because we have representation, and the process was within the rules and regulations of the United States. Now if im unaware of somekind of cheating or voting fraud on the part of Lincoln, then i would have to go back and do my research again, as u have suggested. But i learned about all the reasons u said in U.S. History junior year of highschool. I just cant see how they would be justified or were being oppressed enough to have to seperate and form their own country.
Also would you atleast admit the fear they had of Lincoln freeing the slaves, was the "straw" that broke the camel's back. Because though it wasnt the ONLY reason, im certain it was the final and a MAJOR reason.
Actually, the complaint the South had of Lincoln was that he was opposed to the expansion of slavery into new territories. And he was under the impression that it would eventually die out.Quote:
Originally Posted by redneck
If the succession came as the result of Lincoln's victory, and Lincoln ran on an anti-slavery platform, wouldn't it be safe to assume that the South objected to the anti-slavery platform? Or where they against him because he was tall?Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham Lincoln (At Springfield, June 17, 1858)
It was in their constitution. Constitutions are difficult to change. Before they could even modify slavery laws, they'd have to change the constitution to allow such a law to even be considered. Slavery would have remained for a very long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by redneck
Well no more than the American Revolution forced Britian to become America. The South wanted separation, not conquest.Quote:
Originally Posted by redneck
Let me ask you a question -- If I were to declare my home a seperate republic (looking at my username the only name I can come up with is "Republic of Spira"), form a military and a seperate government, make a big flag etc., and shoot at American troops when they come to arrest me, am I a traitor? Yes, I am.Quote:
Originally Posted by redneck
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/treason
By all three of these, if I was to declare a republic and shoot at American soldiors, I am a traitor. I am betraying my government (by shooting at them), I am undermining the government (First by declaring a republic, and then by shooting at troops), and I am showing disloyalty and subversive behavior by my actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyperdictionary
Quote:
Originally Posted by redneck
Slavery was a big part of the presidential election just previous to the seccession. The fear expressed here by Sen. Steven Douglas is that the North intended to forcibly end slavery in their territories and that only after such a war could the slavery issue be settled. I notice that in this entire speech, Douglas mentions no other issue that the North was forcing on them. Only slavery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sen. Steven Douglas On the Ooccasion of His Public Reception at Chicago, Friday Evening, July 9, 1858. (Mr. Lincoln Was Present.)
Sure wish I'd gotten that once or twice instead of a two-week ban...Quote:
EDIT: There is no need for comments like that. Just present your argument without taking shots at other members. -Murder
I'd say that one issue alone would be pretty flimsy reason for such an important decision, but yes, they have that right. In fact, shortly before the War of Northern Aggression there was a movement to seceed from the south. In fact, some people are speaking of it even now.Quote:
Really and so i guess u'd say that if all the States that voted for Kerry succeeded from the U.S. then they'd have the right to, just because they didnt vote Bush into power? I just dont think thats right, i have problems with the process, but i still beileve its fair (enough).
But you're cold enough to advocate stealing Southern money to support Northern industry? My view of compassion doesn't involve spending someone else's money on worthy causes--much less using it to do what someone should be doing for themselves.Quote:
Also i guess u beileve they should have just left the North to collapse, instead of help their fellow countrymen. Im just not cold enough to beileve they would be justified in doing that.
Considering that 98% of southerners didn't own slaves, and that 98% still had to buy manufactured goods, the idea that only slaveowners suffered just isn't correct.Quote:
And i seriously doubt the tariffs were high enough to be crippling the Souths properous economy. Probably put a dent in the return the slaveowners got back, but why should they care they didnt pay their workers, i mean its not like they gave they health insurance.
And I'm sure you just oozed with sympathy when the Democratic party held a stranglehold on Congress for more than 40 years.....Quote:
They had all they wanted, representation, possibly more representation than my party has (since the repubs. control the House, Senate, White house, and soon if not already the Supreme Court),
Again, false. It would be rather flimsy for, say, the Northeast to seceed over an election, but it's certainly been considered--including by Lincoln himself. Moreover, in 1788 several states did secede, and formed a union independent of New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Virginia. Notably, the Union refused to try any Confederates for treason for the very reason that this would have called the constitutionality of any such charge into question.Quote:
yet if the democrats broke away to form their own country, not only would they be charged with, convicted of, and possibly sentenced to death for treason, but it would be justifiably so.
Said Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massechussettes in 1899, "When the Constitution was adopted by the votes of States at Philadelphia, and accepted by the votes of States in popular conventions, it is safe to say there was no man in this country, from Washington and Hamilton on the one side to George Clinton and George Mason on the other, who regarded our system of Government, when first adopted, as anything but an experiment entered upon by the States, and from which each and every State had the right to peaceably withdraw, a right which was very likely to be exercised. (Henry Cabot Lodge, Daniel Webster, Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton, Mifflin, and Company, 1899, p. 176)"
Moreover, Amendment 10 to the Constitution (the last of the first 10 Amendments known as the "Bill of Rights,"), states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Secession is indeed a power not prohibited by the Constitution to the states (in fact, the Constitution declines to mention it at all, and considering that it had already happened once, it's surely a stretch of logic to assume this was an oversight), and thus according to the Constitution is a right reserved to the states.
-There was no indication that Congress would pass any law ending slavery. If they had attempted it, enough slave-holding states--both Confederate and non-Confederate--had representatives that they would have been able to shut it down.Quote:
Also would you atleast admit the fear they had of Lincoln freeing the slaves, was the "straw" that broke the camel's back.
-Lincoln had more than once assured that he had no intention of freeing the slaves--and indeed wouldn't have, if he hadn't feared British support of the Confederacy, which is why he didn't make any effort to free slaves in Maryland, Kentucky, Missourri, or Delaware, where he actually had the power to--As the London Spectator noted in 1863, Lincoln "...liberated the enemy's slaves as it would the enemy's cattle, simply to weaken them....The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States.". Had such a law passed, there's no reason to believe it would have been signed.
-In 1857, the Supreme Court passed the Dred Scott decision, which legally held that people had a right to own slaves. If a law ending slavery had passed both the legislative and executive branches, the courts would have reversed it.
--Therefore, if Secession had been over the matter of slavery, it would have been completely unnecessary.
-In March of 1865, the Confederate States authorized the emancipation and recruitment of 300,000 slaves. Had they been fighting to keep slavery, freeing their own slaves would be at best counterproductive to this end--as James Gardner, editor-in-chief of the Augusta, Georgia Daily Constitutionalist, said, "As between reunion...[and] submission to the Yankee and the entire obliteration of negro slavery; individually we should say slavery must go."
-As a last-ditch effort to stave off Secession, Lincoln advanced an amendment to the Constitution, the Corwin Amendment, that would have protected slavery forever--it passed the House by 133-65 and the Senate by 24-12, even after seven states had seceded and vacated their seats, and eventually died in ratification of several states as wartime concerns became more pressing. Surely, a secession to save slavery would have been halted in its tracks by such a guarantee.
-And secession produced a national border that slaves could easily slip across. Since the Confederate States were no longer part of the Union, the Union now had no obligation to return escaped slaves (as they did before Secession), and thus Secession itself was a death-knell for slavery.
There were several complaints regarding both Lincoln and the Republican party--one of the most prominent was a general and rather virulent hostility to the South, evidenced in inflammatory (and sometimes libellous) speeches and campaign documents with such captions as "The Stupid Masses of the South".Quote:
Actually, the complaint the South had of Lincoln was that he was opposed to the expansion of slavery into new territories.
The biggest issue was the matter of tariffs, wherein the South paid about 83% of the nation's taxes and recieved significantly less than half of the proceeds. As the Georgia declaration of secession states:
The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 [about $8.5 million in today?s dollars] is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually [about $34 million today] for the support of these objects. These interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually [about $119 million today], throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors.
Some of these tariffs had almost caused Secession 30 years earlier, over the "Tariff of Abominations". This also explains why the war was necessary, from Lincoln's point of view. The Secession cost the Union a huge amount of revenue, while reducing their expenses by a much smaller amount.
This impression was correct. Not only were cultural and religious influence bearing against it (this is what convinced Robert E. Lee to manumit (set free) all of his slaves long before the Secession), but the practice was plain and simply becoming obsolete. Advancements both in farming and in farming implements meant that for a plantation to have slaves would be a huge increase in cost over their neighbors--meaning that if they didn't stop the practice of slavery, their neighbors would render them obsolete. It was the same advancement of the Industrial Revolution that had made slavery obsolete in the North.Quote:
And he was under the impression that it would eventually die out.
First, the government not passing a law doesn't mean no one will do it. Slavery was on its way to becoming obsolete, and if the government couldn't pass a law outlawing slavery, it certainly couldn't pass one forcing slaveowners to keep their slaves.Quote:
It was in their constitution. Constitutions are difficult to change. Before they could even modify slavery laws, they'd have to change the constitution to allow such a law to even be considered.
More importantly, the Confederacy's constitution prevented the Confederate government from passing such a law. By the very nature of a Confederacy, each state still had the right to do so--and eventually, would have.
While I've already noted (and quoted this comment earlier) that the Confederate flag doesn't represent "hatred, racism and slavery" any more than the US flag does, let me ask a question.... What about African flags?Quote:
Well, the United States changed its ways it now stands for freedom of all people, as opposed to ur flag which represents hatred, racism, and slavery.
I've seen plenty of them, hanging from mirrors or put on liscense plates (for those of y'all confused at this point, a lot of southern states only demand one liscense plate, so a lot of people put something else--such as a rebel flag, or an African flag--in place of the front liscense-plate)--a green, yellow, and black flag that represents Africa. Many black people display this because they are proud of their heritage--and this is not only allowable, but very cool. But if, by your logic, a flag under which slavery took place represents slavery... then how much more so a flag under which is still takes place? Slavery is, in fact, the only African tradition which the United States has imported, has been part of its history for thousands of years; and the slaves brought to America were captured by Africans. You say that if the South had won you'd probably be a slave today? You'd be more likely to be a slave today if your ancestors had stayed in Africa.
Yes, but no racist group uses the African Flag to promote its version of racial superiority. The Nazi flag and the Battle Flag of the Confederacy (as I understand it, the "stars and bars" was the battle flag put in place because the Confederate soldiors were getting confused and leaving with Union units) are both currently used by racist groups as a symbol of their goals. The KKK uses the "stars and bars" flag all the time. The neo-Nazis use the swastika flag the same way. If neither flag was used by these groups right now, then they wouldn't be considered racist. They'd be historical flags hanging in museums. Really the political flag of the confederacy has no racist connotation at all because no racist group has ever organized itself under the political flag of the CSA, just the battle flag.Quote:
Quote:
Well, the United States changed its ways it now stands for freedom of all people, as opposed to ur flag which represents hatred, racism, and slavery.
While I've already noted (and quoted this comment earlier) that the Confederate flag doesn't represent "hatred, racism and slavery" any more than the US flag does, let me ask a question.... What about African flags?
I've seen plenty of them, hanging from mirrors or put on liscense plates (for those of y'all confused at this point, a lot of southern states only demand one liscense plate, so a lot of people put something else--such as a rebel flag, or an African flag--in place of the front liscense-plate)--a green, yellow, and black flag that represents Africa. Many black people display this because they are proud of their heritage--and this is not only allowable, but very cool. But if, by your logic, a flag under which slavery took place represents slavery... then how much more so a flag under which is still takes place? Slavery is, in fact, the only African tradition which the United States has imported, has been part of its history for thousands of years; and the slaves brought to America were captured by Africans. You say that if the South had won you'd probably be a slave today? You'd be more likely to be a slave today if your ancestors had stayed in Africa.
Simple odds say otherwise--the country isn't exactly flooded with them, but there are quite a few black racist groups out there, and the flag's right there to use. That doesn't make that flag racist, but it does make it likely someone will use it as a symbol.Quote:
Yes, but no racist group uses the African Flag to promote its version of racial superiority.
So are many other flags--including the US flag, which even the KKK used during the first 90 years or so of its existence, and the cross, which the bastards still use. Does this make the cross a racist symbol?Quote:
The Nazi flag and the Battle Flag of the Confederacy (as I understand it, the "stars and bars" was the battle flag put in place because the Confederate soldiors were getting confused and leaving with Union units) are both currently used by racist groups as a symbol of their goals.
And actually, the swastika is a good-luck symbol. When I was in Korea, it was fairly common to see someone flying a white flag with a red swastika above his house. Didn't have anything to do with the Nazis; it just meant the guy was a buddhist.
Can you name an organization that actually uses the African flag as a racist symbol?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
The cross is still the symbol of Christianity, and the KKK generally used flaming crosses. That's a little bit different. No church that I'm aware of burns crosses, so the symbol is different. I don't think the average person is looking at a cross and wondering if that building belongs to the KKK, mostly because 9/10 times you see a cross, it is on a church.Quote:
Originally Posted by redneck
As to the US Flag, the flag is still the symbol of an existing nation. The Confederate flags other than being used by KKK and other such groups weren't being used as a symbol of anything else. Since the only time the average person saw the stars and bars was at KKK type meetings, it isn't hard to see how someone could see that flag and wonder if the person was racist.
First of all, the Nazi Flag was red with a white circle and a black swastika, that isn't the same flag at all. Another thing is that the swastika in Asia is exactly backwards of the European one. (One is clockwise and the other is anti-clockwise, but I can't remember which one was which) So the Korean swastika isn't even the same swastika even if the flags were similar.Quote:
Originally Posted by redneck
ignoring the recent seeminly of topic posts i'll list bush as my worst president. and so not to make this a rant i'll leave a few reasons.
turning 9-11 into his own reichstag fire.
getting rid of kyoto as his first thing to do in office.
no action on nuclear non-proliferation.
dismantling singlehandedly the power of the un.
changing the us laws on human rights.
withdrawing from the war crimes court.
turning the election into a media won slagging match.
quantanamo bay.
econimic down turn.
rise in unemployment.
drop in the value of the dollar.
rise in c02 levels.
rise in oil consumption.
the failure of the iraq war.
the hunt for ghosts in afghanistan.
having some of the worst intelligence in history in two wars.
break down of the middle east talks.
the christainisation of a supposedly faithless nation.
drawing america further to the right.
offering rewards on terrorists.
reducing taxes on the rich.
having anti-american sentiment spiral.
that'll do for now.
Can't think of any offhand, but like I said, the law of averages suggests somebody has.Quote:
Can you name an organization that actually uses the African flag as a racist symbol?
Judging by what I saw last time I laughed at Jerry Springer (when I was in the Army I'd tune my TV to that channel and turn it off while my idiot roommate watched it--when he started cheering, I'd turn it on real quick to see who was fighting or stripping), they wear a cross on the right breast of their... robes, or whatever they call their bedsheets.Quote:
The cross is still the symbol of Christianity, and the KKK generally used flaming crosses.
And more than one church, including the Methodist Church and the Presbyterian Church, bears the image of a cross with a stylized flame (which, I believe, is meant to represent the Pentecostal fire).
Actually, the Confederate flag was a part of several state flags--in the case when the "Battle Flag" wasn't orginally incorporated into the state flag, it replaced a different flag representing the Confederacy (such as in Georgia, when the "Battle Flag" was added to the state flag shortly after the last living Confederate soldier in the state died).Quote:
The Confederate flags other than being used by KKK and other such groups weren't being used as a symbol of anything else. Since the only time the average person saw the stars and bars was at KKK type meetings,
I apologize if I seemed to imply that it was the exact same flag--the Korean swastika (as in the one I saw in Korea--I don't know if other countries have the same tradition, and the Korean Flag doesn't have a swastika on it) is a white flag, completely undecorated except for the red swastika.Quote:
First of all, the Nazi Flag was red with a white circle and a black swastika, that isn't the same flag at all. Another thing is that the swastika in Asia is exactly backwards of the European one. (One is clockwise and the other is anti-clockwise, but I can't remember which one was which) So the Korean swastika isn't even the same swastika even if the flags were similar.
However, the symbol is still indeed a swastika, and as any black person who's found one spray-painted on his or her door can attest, a swastika without a white circle and a red border is still a swastika, with all the usual connotations. The Korean swastikas are not seen as racist not because they're not exactly the same as the Nazi swastika, but because all or most people who see it understand whatever other people who fly a swastika may think, this person flying a swastika has no statement in support of racism or nazism to make.
And this next part ought to be fun....
Nice of you to add a little Reductio ad Hitlerum in there, but to claim that taking action against terrorism after our nation suffered a horrendous attack by terrorists is a "reichstag fire" is... well, it's well-known that sometimes hatred can overpower reason. As for the other connotations of the Reichstag fire--i.e., the Nazi involvement in its taking place, I'll simply note it as ridiculously false, laugh cruelly, and move on to...Quote:
turning 9-11 into his own reichstag fire.
First of all, since the Kyoto Treaty had no goal except to kick America in the leg, getting rid of it would be a good thing.Quote:
getting rid of kyoto as his first thing to do in office.
However, Bush did not 'get rid of kyoto'. It's the Senate's duty to ratify or not ratify treaties, and the Senate refused to ratify Kyoto.
Wait'll we invade Iran, then.Quote:
no action on nuclear non-proliferation.
As with the Kyoto Treaty--not only is this a good thing, as the UN is useless, wasteful, and corrupt, but Bush did not dismantle the power of the UN--the UN did that itself, by abandoning its goals and turning itself into a characature.Quote:
dismantling singlehandedly the power of the un.
Alright, I'll bite--which laws on human rights did Bush change?Quote:
changing the us laws on human rights.
You mean we don't send our soldiers off to some anti-American organization to be punished for doing their jobs? For SHAME!Quote:
withdrawing from the war crimes court.
Ahh, yes--if he'd only let Gore steal the election, the media wouldn't have had anything to say? Hmm, isn't that my line?Quote:
turning the election into a media won slagging match.
How dare we imprison terrorists?! Tell you what--send us your address, and we'll send 'em to your house instead.Quote:
quantanamo bay.
You mean the recession that started under Clinton?Quote:
econimic down turn.
rise in unemployment.
drop in the value of the dollar.
Ahh, yes--the next environmental disaster--right after the mass starvation in 1968, and in 85, and the Global Cooling catastrophe of the '70's....Quote:
rise in c02 levels.
rise in oil consumption.
Saddam Houssein is gone, the Iraqi people are choosing their own leaders. Failure non-existant.Quote:
the failure of the iraq war.
Actually, we're working on making them into ghosts.Quote:
the hunt for ghosts in afghanistan.
That would be the intelligence that told us Sodom had weapons of mass destruction? Something like British Intelligence, French Intelligence (which said Sodom would be able to build a nuke by '05), Russian Intelligence, German Intelligence, Australian Intelligence, etc., etc., etc.? You'll notice (or not, but I'll still point out) that none of Sodom's protectors were claiming that he didn't have these weapons before the war....Quote:
having some of the worst intelligence in history in two wars.
Which talks? I'm assuming you mean regarding Israel and the palestinians, but I'd rather be sure before I start ranting.Quote:
break down of the middle east talks.
I don't know how it is in Scotland, but here in America it isn't a crime for an officeholder to be a Christian.Quote:
the christainisation of a supposedly faithless nation.
Again, a good thing, except that it's debatable whether he's actually doing so.Quote:
drawing america further to the right.
You think Bush is a bad president because he's offering rewards on terrorists?Quote:
offering rewards on terrorists.
The people getting screwed hardest get some relief, and you call this a bad thing?Quote:
reducing taxes on the rich.
Yes, Bush has caused America to earn the hatred of America-hating nations all over the world. Horrid, horrid man.....Quote:
having anti-american sentiment spiral.
i actually used the reichstag in there in the believe that the communists may have started that fire. it wa then used as an excuse to grab power kill off a few thousand commies and pass through the enabling and defence of the people and the state acts. which would then led on to a land grab and genocide of a people. that was what i was refering to.
actually if you read the first few lines of kyoto it will tell you that it' plan is to cut co2 levels.
redneck i don't quite understand your retort about iran there.
bush re-wrote the definition of torture for america. stating that torture is "intentionally causing permanent damage to vital organs or permanent emotional trauma" (which allows electric shocks and water torture). it also allows the use of evidence obtained during torture to be submitted as evidence. (it has recently be re-written again after abu-gahrib to allow mental torture to count)
i hate to tell you but your soldiers jobs are not to take part in war crimes.
an election should be won on prinicples and promises not made into a media fed laughing stock.
actually your question redneck should be "how dare we imprison suspected terroosts for 4 years without a trial, lawyer or inspection of conditions"
your great intelligence also declared that al-qaeda had bunkers which had their own power supply, living quarters, defences including tanks and planes were in tora bora. whayt was found instead was a couple of caves with a few guns and rpgs in them. and since the iraq survey group left iraq empty handed after months of searching for wmd and found very vey little that great inteligence you hold up so high could crash down around your ears.
the iraq war was a bit of failure really wasn't it? you turned a stable albeit nasty country into an unstable nasty country. that was a great change. i bet little timmy the iraqi boy with his face blown off will be so glad the americans came. most iraqi's are not concerned with democracy what is most important to them is being able to pick up friday dinner without losing a leg.
the seacrh in afghanistan returned withou bin laden or most of his generals.
offering rewards on terrorists is a bad idea. because if i fancy a quick buck i tell my local american that my next door neighbour had bin laden over for tea last night and i walk off with a few thousand dollars.
i'm sorry but i hate to see how ich people are screwed hardest in america. wouldn't the man being screwed hardest being the man digging ditches for minimum wage or cleaning out cess pools? men making a billion dollars a year are now being screwed over? thank good i'm not rich i would hate that. i'll much rather keep a minimum wage and avoid the tax man tahnk you very much.
fighting two wars against a religion and breaking down the un and for all the reasons above is why america is hated across the globe. not because they have nothing else to hate.
[quote] actually used the reichstag in there in the believe that the communists may have started that fire.[quote]
Which is why I included that first part. A claim that taking action against terrorism after suffering a horrific terrorist attack is reminiscent of Nazism is proof that hatred can indeed overwhelm reason.
And if you read the rest of Kyoto it will tell you how countries other than the US are allowed to raise CO2 levels.Quote:
actually if you read the first few lines of kyoto it will tell you that it' plan is to cut co2 levels.
And again--which law did he change? Where is there any evidence of this re-writing?Quote:
bush re-wrote the definition of torture for america. stating that torture is "intentionally causing permanent damage to vital organs or permanent emotional trauma" (which allows electric shocks and water torture). it also allows the use of evidence obtained during torture to be submitted as evidence. (it has recently be re-written again after abu-gahrib to allow mental torture to count)
Click the link on it, then.Quote:
redneck i don't quite understand your retort about iran there.
Glad to see you finally acknowledge this.Quote:
hate to tell you but your soldiers jobs are not to take part in war crimes.
Great, and very true. What you fail to address, though, is how Bush's refusal to let Gore steal the election he won "turn[ed] the election into a media won slagging match."Quote:
an election should be won on prinicples and promises not made into a media fed laughing stock.
Actually, the Red Cross has more than one report of their inspections. Otherwise, people we capture trying to kill us are a step further than "suspected" terrorists.Quote:
actually your question redneck should be "how dare we imprison suspected terroosts for 4 years without a trial, lawyer or inspection of conditions"
That's a declaration I don't remember seeing--do you have some kind of source, or evidence for that claim?Quote:
your great intelligence also declared that al-qaeda had bunkers which had their own power supply, living quarters, defences including tanks and planes were in tora bora.
[quote]the iraq war was a bit of failure really wasn't it?[quote]
Again--Sodom gone; Iraqi people choosing their own leaders. If you consider that to be "failure", then that says more about you than about the US or our leaders.
Ahh, yes--we had the rape-rooms, the plastic-shredders, the mass graves, and the invasion of neighbors, but at least there wasn't going to be a revolution anytime soon! Were you actually serious when you typed that?Quote:
you turned a stable albeit nasty country into an unstable nasty country. that was a great change.
I bet big Timmy the Iraqi father with three daughters that won't end up in the rape-rooms is pretty glad about it too.Quote:
i bet little timmy the iraqi boy with his face blown off will be so glad the americans came.
[quote]most iraqi's are not concerned with democracy[quote]
The opinions of actual Iraqis (along with plain and simple common sense) refutes this one easily enough.
Actually, we caught a significant number of his generals and more than half of his organization, along with destroying his base of operations.Quote:
the seacrh in afghanistan returned withou bin laden or most of his generals.
Uh, you don't walk off with a few thousand dollars unless your information actually gets some results--that's why they call it "information leading to the capture of....". Again, I have to ask you to please tell me you weren't being serious when you typed that.Quote:
offering rewards on terrorists is a bad idea. because if i fancy a quick buck i tell my local american that my next door neighbour had bin laden over for tea last night and i walk off with a few thousand dollars.
That would be the part about a third of everthing they earn being stolen from them before they even get it.Quote:
m sorry but i hate to see how ich people are screwed hardest in america.
If some guy puts up with working for minimum wage, the only person screwing him is himself.Quote:
wouldn't the man being screwed hardest being the man digging ditches for minimum wage or cleaning out cess pools?
Against a religion? You mean Sodom wasn't "secular" after all?Quote:
fighting two wars against a religion
So the world hates us for not supporting a corrupt and ineffective global agency as much as they'd prefer and defending ourselves? Y'know, somehow I doubt that.Quote:
and breaking down the un and for all the reasons above is why america is hated across the globe.
Thank you for clarifying that, just in case I decide to claim that people who hate America do so because there's nothing else out there to hate.Quote:
not because they have nothing else to hate.
actually kyoto states that co2 levels must come down. some countries levels are allowed to remain stable or even rise because they are developing countries and it seems rather unfair to stamp on their development as much as the rest of the worlds. also it's not just american levels that need to fall. france, germany, uk, italy, spain, japan, russia, ireland, australia, new zealand. that list is vry far from just wanting to stomp purely on america.
the re-writing has done by a man called alberto gonzales. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto...#War_on_Terror
there you can read on his part on the war on terror, the breaches in human rights, war crimes and trying to re-write the law that he authorised.
"Quote:
hate to tell you but your soldiers jobs are not to take part in war crimes.
Glad to see you finally acknowledge this."
i miss your point here.
my actual alegation regarding the election was regrading the most recent. elections should not be about who can tell the biggest stories or who can scare the hardest.
a great majority of people in guantanamo bay were not captured trying to kill you. begg (yes him again) had his door kicked in while he slept in pakistan. a few hundred miles away from trying to kill american soldiers. considering he was across the border and alseep unless he was sleep walking with a missle i do not see how men like him can be considered a risk, imprisoned for 3-4 years without a layer, charge or hearing.
that declaration was made in front of the un before the afghan war. the easiest posible source to see it is at the start of a porgam called "the power of nightmares" there is a webpage which contains the entire transcript and footage of the program if you want to see this then ask aagin but it is very bandwisth heavy. though the text can be viewed if you cancel the footage. please ask if you want this, i just wanted to save you any problems.
my point regarding offering rewards for terrorists regards the northern alliance. were money was given for the capture of an unspecified person. it could have been anyone. it wasn't a bounty it was a reward for claiming someone was an al-qaeda member.
i would be one of the people "putting up " with a min wage job. not because i'm thick or unskilled (unconditional at one of the best uni's) but because there is nothing else. i work 9 hours a day 7 days for Ł3 an hour with half an hour break a day and very few days off. this isn't because i like it or put up with it but is because i need to and there is nothing else.
iraq is a mess right now and ha not improved in it's violence since the end of the invasion as the big american plan had it. more people are probably dying now than were dying under sadamme. it's generated ahuge wave of anti-americanism across the world which has led to growing ranks of people willing to destroy american and it's people.
it does not matter what sadamme was secular or not. he would go into mosques when it suited him. but to the islamic world bush has invaded two muslim countries one of which was an unprovoked attack that even it's allies said was wrong an unjust. they will forever see it as an imperial war against their religion.
alot of people do hate you for single handedly destroying an organisation that has helped millions of people and brought the world closer together. protected the rights of people, fought for people, fed people and supported people.
people don't hate american out of jealousy, greed or religion. it is out of fear, contempt and watching the world around them.
It is due to power that america is hated.
Power brings many things.
Others will view you as having to help them. We can't help everyone, not possible.
Others will fear your potential for violence and may interpret actions wrong. You don't know exactly what the higher ups were thinking.
Others will be jealous/envious(yes some would be, particually rulers), and these rulers will mud sling.. and even a saint isn't immune to mud slinging.
Others probably fear our economic and government system the same way we feared communism.
Others probably fear our religious ties(Israel as an example) due to the amount of fighting between religions in the past.(I am certian you can find them).
Now the USA is not a saint.. we make mistakes, and have wrong intentions from time to time. BUT we do try.
could we do more? Perhaps.
Do we need to fix our homefront? Yes.
If your sister would die from a disease, but you could prevent it with the medicine or if you could prevent a stranger with the medicine, who would you choose. Assuming they both desire it. I think I would choose my sister.. or try and find a way to save both.. but failing that.. yep my sister is the one to live.
Sorry.. but we do need some of our resources at home.
but why if you need your resources at home did bush choose iraq and to drop the tax income by getting rid of taxing the rich? first of all why iraq of all places. it wasn't the biggest threat to america, it had little terrorist ties, wasn't the biggest human rights problem. but you wasted valuable resources and lives on it.
it is not the power of america that is hated it is the misuse of that power.
Ah but the power was not neccesarily misused.
Sadam was wrong.. and a good start. We should have timed it better and given strong solid reasons why, but those were mistakes and all make them. Now all we gotta do is learn and go on. You must understand that "liberating" the world is a slow process. Targets must be chosen carefully, and it will take time between each target due to the fact that the USA recieves debt from such endeavers. That and no nation to my knowledge can remain perpetually in war.(despite what happens in 1984).
Why doesn't the rest of the UN put forth aid? I mean I am certian they could convince the USA to change thier reasons to lets take out those whom are inhuman rulers. HMM.. but that would mean cooperating wiht the US.. and that is a No-No.
So levels have to come down, except in certain countries.Quote:
actually kyoto states that co2 levels must come down. some countries levels are allowed to remain stable or even rise
And guess who the numbers come heaviest on? Go ahead, guess!Quote:
also it's not just american levels that need to fall. france, germany, uk, italy, spain, japan, russia, ireland, australia, new zealand. that list is vry far from just wanting to stomp purely on america.
[quote]the re-writing has done by a man called alberto gonzales. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert...s#War_on_Terror[/wuote]
"Gonzales authored a memo in January of 2002 that explored whether Article III of the Geneva Convention applied to Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters captured in Afghanistan and held in facilities around the world, including Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba." (from the site)
He didn't rewrite the rules, he noted that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to terrorists.
Ahh, so Bush's real crime was being libeled by a gigolo. {i]Now[/i] I understand!!Quote:
my actual alegation regarding the election was regrading the most recent. elections should not be about who can tell the biggest stories or who can scare the hardest.
I'd like to see something resembling evidence of this.Quote:
a great majority of people in guantanamo bay were not captured trying to kill you. begg (yes him again) had his door kicked in while he slept in pakistan. a few hundred miles away from trying to kill american soldiers. considering he was across the border and alseep unless he was sleep walking with a missle i do not see how men like him can be considered a risk, imprisoned for 3-4 years without a layer, charge or hearing.
By all means.Quote:
that declaration was made in front of the un before the afghan war. the easiest posible source to see it is at the start of a porgam called "the power of nightmares" there is a webpage which contains the entire transcript and footage of the program if you want to see this then ask aagin but it is very bandwisth heavy. though the text can be viewed if you cancel the footage. please ask if you want this, i just wanted to save you any problems.
The Capture. No terrorist, no money. So no, the idea that we were handing out money to anyone that wanted to lie about his neighbor still doesn't hold up to the application of common sense.Quote:
my point regarding offering rewards for terrorists regards the northern alliance. were money was given for the capture of an unspecified person. it could have been anyone. it wasn't a bounty it was a reward for claiming someone was an al-qaeda member.
Actually, it has indeed. No gassing villages, no rape rooms, mass graves being dug up instead of filled--all that good stuff.Quote:
iraq is a mess right now and ha not improved in it's violence since the end of the invasion as the big american plan had it. more people are probably dying now than were dying under sadamme.
I'll keep that in mind....Quote:
it does not matter what sadamme was secular or not.
How horrid. People who hated us, now hate us.Quote:
but to the islamic world bush has invaded two muslim countries one of which was an unprovoked attack that even it's allies said was wrong an unjust. they will forever see it as an imperial war against their religion.
First, the UN destroyed itself through its refusal to uphold the principles it supposedly stands for. Second, we're referring to an organization that deliberately stood aside to allow genocides, serves as a bully pulpit for every two-bit dictator and jihadist that figures to need one, and whose major accomplishment is the rape of 13-year-olds.Quote:
alot of people do hate you for single handedly destroying an organisation that has helped millions of people and brought the world closer together. protected the rights of people, fought for people, fed people and supported people.
I note again, that the people who hate America have made it clear that they do indeed hate us because of religion.Quote:
people don't hate american out of jealousy, greed or religion. it is out of fear, contempt and watching the world around them.
And the economic failures of your country proves what about my country? Besides that jealousy is indeed a part of why some people hate America?Quote:
i would be one of the people "putting up " with a min wage job. not because i'm thick or unskilled (unconditional at one of the best uni's) but because there is nothing else. i work 9 hours a day 7 days for Ł3 an hour with half an hour break a day and very few days off. this isn't because i like it or put up with it but is because i need to and there is nothing else.
What is important to keep in mind about Iraq is that, while the situation has improved, there is still so much work left to be done. At least two members of the newly elected government have declined their posts citing that they felt those in the majority were setting up a puppet government and recent reports from the front have indicated that the level of tension has been on the rise again. More than ever, the lack of any rebuilding or exit strategy is the real tragedy of this war as right now there does not seem to be any way to avoid a potential rift in the new government and perhaps, a civil war.
Take care all.
I would also like to add that never before has the United States set up anything BUT a puppet government. Anyone who thinks that the United States of America is actually going to do something different in Iraq is a... well... I don't feel like getting banned. Use your own imagination.
the numbers come heaviest down on america. and we know why don't we? becasue america has the highest co2 output ratio of any developed country. therfore they should clean up more than everyone else. that is just common sense.america has the most to change.
the word of your 80th attorney general is citing breach of human rights as declared by the un human rights charter and signed by the us. the changes to what count as illegal interrogation techiniques is illegal. not all men in camp x-ray are enemy combtants as they were captured outside a battle fireld area or in a different country entirely (we'll come back to this and begg later) and so even stricter rules of treatment apply to civilian captives. also the usa patriot act is breaks the us constitution in sections 505 and 805. and i hate to say it as i have studied nazism for 4 years the similarites between us at present and germany after the reichstag fires are shocking. wording is similar, laws are similar, public opinion is similar. the patriot act and the Decree of the Reich President for the protection of people and state are similar in both wording, presentation and results of them.
moazzam begg, was arrested in islamabad. held in afghanistan for a year and then in cuba for 2. anoher helpful little link for you different from the one i used before when i was asked the same question for the sake of variety. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moazzam_Begg
the link requested for the power of nightmares is http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1040.htm
i suggest also reading and watching the first two parts as well as they contain great detail on the start of the jihad and will answer another questions you have on why isay the jihad is not a religous war on america and why i regard the war on terror as a joke and al-qaeda a bigger one. it also details of the capture of supposed terrorists, the evidence against them and the techniques used. for quickness thogh quotes you are looking for is. thought the pictures gives a far greater presentation of this fabrication.
"RUSSERT : A complex. Multi-tiered. [ READING , AS LABELS ARE DISPLAYED ON DIAGRAM ] “Bedrooms and Offices” on the top, as you can see. “Secret Exits” on the side, and on the bottom. “Cut Deep to Avoid Thermal Detection.” A ventilation system, to allow people to breathe and to carry on. The entrances, large enough to drive trucks and even tanks. Even computer systems and telephone systems. It’s a very sophisticated operation."
what i refer to happening in aghanistan with the northern alliance and rewards is detailed as well.
"VO: And now, they took their revenge on the foreign fighters. The Americans believed that these men were Al Qaeda terrorists, and the Northern Alliance did nothing to disabuse them of this, because they were paid by the Americans for each prisoner they delivered."
this is also how begg believes he was captured as he was not arrested by military men.
actually graveyeards in iraq are growing because every day a car bomb goes off that kills a few more innocent iraqi's. is this american justice or the great american war against terror? was this the great plan to rid of the world of an evil man? to have children blown up in the street? this wasn't happening before. it's happening now after an illegal war. human rights abuses have just been replaced with bonbs outside police stations. it's no better.
and to cut through the gassing of villages. the most popular reference for this being halabja. there's a slight problem there. and that's to do with timing and who hlped fund that operation. who supplied iraq with those chemical weapons? the bombs needed to contain them? the planes to drop them? traied the pilots that flew them? installed the systems to guide them? that would have been america who at the time were concerned with iran and had no objections to gassing people then. now when it suits america gassing people is all of a sudden wrong and an evil they funded it in the first place and are so ultimately to blame for it. america was responsible for halabja.
america has greatly angered the muslim world and so this is why you needn't be shocked if bombs are planted in manhattan. people should start thinking that these people are so determined to show their hate for america that they will take their own lives . invading two muslim countries has just amplified this and made the chances of another 9-11 attack far greater. you've dug your own grave.
the un was broekn down over iraq. and the un stood up for what it believed in. it was determind to allow the inspectors to finish their duty rather than invade without needed evidence. america decided to roll over the top of this and invade anyway. and still found nothing. the un supported america 100% of afghanistan. that isn't corruption or anti-americanism. they saw an injustice and supported america. they saw iraq and saw that it was illegal. that day america lost all the support it had gained in 2001 and threw it away to fight an illegal war.
my point about my job was that not everyone chooses to be in a min wage job. sometimes it is unavoidable. why should i and they be punished for this? taking money off the rich is not a crime against them. it also pays for your injust war and pays your war criminal soldiers who fight it.
When you say christainsation you mean the fact htat the republicans that are neo-conservatives are hiding behind christainity right?>lol I'm a Christian and I'm a Democrat and I'm Liberal. Some smart bastard said i was gonna burn in hell because i dont support bush.The republicans are hiding behind a religion and really you have other members in the republican party thats actually fearful of this happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
I think the christain community in America is getting ready to have a hudge split.Sometime in my lifetime(if the rapture doesnt happen).
As for the saddam thing and BTW redneck i know this isnt int eh topic but american oil companies are holding the oil reserves in Iraq.I just wanted to get that out there.
I dont see Saddam as a mistake.I see that whole Iraq issue as being planned in the first place.I remember when he was first in office and the bush administration said it themselves that Saddam doesn't pose a threat.You can't blame the enviroment on a president BTW.
i can't blame the enviroment on a president but i can blame the refusal to do anything to improve the situation on him.
Yeah your right.But come on he's a bush.He's probaly in his room right now picking between Syria and Iran and N.Korea to go by using. any miny miney moe.
And yet you try to tell us exactly the opposite; that the UN is not anti-American.Quote:
he numbers come heaviest down on america. and we know why don't we?
Supporting the world tends to do that. In the meantime, there's no reason to assume we should cripple our economy to take part in a treaty that will do nothing overall in averting a non-existant threat.Quote:
becasue america has the highest co2 output ratio of any developed country. therfore they should clean up more than everyone else. that is just common sense.america has the most to change.
Again, incorrect, as this applies to prisoners of war, not captured terrorists.Quote:
the word of your 80th attorney general is citing breach of human rights as declared by the un human rights charter and signed by the us.
And what are sections 505 and 805, that supposedly violate the Constitution?Quote:
also the usa patriot act is breaks the us constitution in sections 505 and 805.
Except that the only similarities exist in the wild accusations of people who hate America considerably more than they hated the Nazis.Quote:
and i hate to say it as i have studied nazism for 4 years the similarites between us at present and germany after the reichstag fires are shocking.
The unlawful combatant who trained with al-Quaeda? Yeah, we got an innocent, there. Whose claims of torture come from... him. But his lawyer believes them....Quote:
moazzam begg, was arrested in islamabad. held in afghanistan for a year and then in cuba for 2. anoher helpful little link for you different from the one i used before when i was asked the same question for the sake of variety. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moazzam_Begg
Actually, the people waging the religious war on America are very clear in just what is its they're doing.Quote:
suggest also reading and watching the first two parts as well as they contain great detail on the start of the jihad and will answer another questions you have on why isay the jihad is not a religous war on america
Would that be their opinion that Al-qaeda doesnt' exist? (part III-- FADE TO BLACK ]Quote:
and why i regard the war on terror as a joke and al-qaeda a bigger one.
[ FADE TO AFGHANISTAN EXTERIOR ]
VO: The terrible truth was that there was nothing there because Al Qaeda as an organisation did not exist.)
Point conceded--we did indeed have intelligence that led us to believe that Al-Qaeda had underground complexes rather than a few caves--that's probably part of what lead to work on the "Bunker-Buster" bombs. To assume that this therefore must be a "fabrication", however, is a curious leap of logic.Quote:
thought the pictures gives a far greater presentation of this fabrication.
"RUSSERT : A complex... ...sophisticated operation."
Sorry, but the narrator for a work of anti-American propoganda does not evidence make--if this is actually something that could be considered a source, wait until I go to Freerepublic.com and start grabbing random forum-posts.Quote:
"VO: And now, they took their revenge on the foreign fighters. The Americans believed that these men were Al Qaeda terrorists, and the Northern Alliance did nothing to disabuse them of this, because they were paid by the Americans for each prisoner they delivered."
So when terrorists blow someone up, it's the fault of America? Truly, your hatred knows no bounds.....Quote:
actually graveyeards in iraq are growing because every day a car bomb goes off that kills a few more innocent iraqi's. is this american justice or the great american war against terror? was this the great plan to rid of the world of an evil man? to have children blown up in the street?
Actually, we provided them with small samples of various chemical weapons that were needed to make gear and antidotes, and which may or may not have been used to make more. To infer that selling them planes to attack Iran with means that we helped them to gas their own people is another curious leap of logic. Or hatred.Quote:
and to cut through the gassing of villages. the most popular reference for this being halabja. there's a slight problem there. and that's to do with timing and who hlped fund that operation. who supplied iraq with those chemical weapons? the bombs needed to contain them? the planes to drop them? traied the pilots that flew them? installed the systems to guide them? that would have been america who at the time were concerned with iran and had no objections to gassing people then. now when it suits america gassing people is all of a sudden wrong and an evil they funded it in the first place and are so ultimately to blame for it. america was responsible for halabja.
By not converting to islam and not letting them kill Jews--they've been very clear on this.Quote:
america has greatly angered the muslim world
We are indeed aware of this. That's why we're tearing down their organizations and killing them.Quote:
and so this is why you needn't be shocked if bombs are planted in manhattan. people should start thinking that these people are so determined to show their hate for america that they will take their own lives .
Oil profits, apparently.Quote:
the un was broekn down over iraq. and the un stood up for what it believed in.
17 years wasn't enough? Is America the only nation that understood that the inspectors weren't going to "finish their duty" with Sodom trailing them and threatening to kill the families of any scientists who spoke with inspectors? Apparently not, since several other nations joined us.Quote:
it was determind to allow the inspectors to finish their duty rather than invade without needed evidence.
Something about nations with veto power making it clear that no amount of evidence would convince them to allow it.Quote:
america decided to roll over the top of this and invade anyway. and still found nothing.
Again, untrue. The UN made a resolution demanding the Taliban turn over bin Laden, but provided no method of enforcing it, and did not support the invasion of Afghanistan. The US, Austrailia, England and the Northern Alliance did the work.Quote:
the un supported america 100% of afghanistan. that isn't corruption or anti-americanism. they saw an injustice and supported america.
I'll say again--shooting at our planes. Even if the rest of it--pursuing weapons of mass destruction, state sponsor of terrorism, hostility to the US--were not true--and it is--Houssein was firing on American troops, which in and of itself is reason for action to remove him.Quote:
they saw iraq and saw that it was illegal.
Ahh, that mythical support. Countries that have hated us for decades now hate us.Quote:
that day america lost all the support it had gained in 2001 and threw it away to fight an illegal war.
Maybe that has something to do with the outright hostility of liberalism to Christianity.Quote:
When you say christainsation you mean the fact htat the republicans that are neo-conservatives are hiding behind christainity right?
That's something I hadn't heard. Got any evidence for it?Quote:
As for the saddam thing and BTW redneck i know this isnt int eh topic but american oil companies are holding the oil reserves in Iraq.I just wanted to get that out there.
You mean he won't cripple our nation for apocalyptic junk-science? Well, I'm sure y'all can come up with some other reason he should.Quote:
can't blame the enviroment on a president but i can blame the refusal to do anything to improve the situation on him.
Better safe than sorry. This is something that both Clinton and Bush Sr. should have worked towards so it wouldn't be so bad to keep cracking down now. I would like to hear why it is junk science anyways. Its not like 50% of scientists say this and the other 50% say that. Its more like 90 to 10...if that. I think I will choose to believe the 90 over the 10.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
I will state the part I really care about again so it gets answered. Why is it junk-science?
actually the kyoto agreement is not part of the un. and it comes down heaviest on the us because they are the heaviest polluters with most to change. it will not cripple your economy. it will in fact bolster it. creating a new industry and power source and making your systems more effecient is a boost to country who's economy is on shaky ground not a destruction.
tut tut redneck you made a mistake. the human rights charter actually applies to all humans hence it's name. the us signed it and so is obliged to keep it. breach of it is breach of human rights we hung people at nuremburg for the same thing. the geneva convention thoough only applies to POWs however....... civillian prisoners who aren't combatants like...... lets say a man who's door you kick in in islamabad are also covered and have very stict rules regarding their treatment.
section 805 declares that expert advice or assistance can be declared as material support to terrorism. that breaches the 1st and 5th ammendemnts
505 allows the government to obtain customer records and this breaches the 1st and fourth ammendments
also the gag orders in the act are also illegal under us law.
similarities between nazi germany and the us in easy steps.
the reichstag and 9-11. both countries passed act following to restrict liberties. both broke their own constitution. both were passed to protect against a threat that was pushed hard in propaganda.
camps have been set up in both countries to contain suspects without trial indefinetly. (i don't refer to death camps but concentration camps for communist before the wannasse conference)
both ignored an internation governing body.
both had international support for military actions until an unlawful invasion.
both allowed people to hand over communists/terrorists and place them in camps. (can someone help me with the word for this? i've been struggling with it for a week)
moazzam begg actually never trained in afghanistan. he was interested in the islamic revolution and visited two training camps. he also visited bosnia but never took up arms. he was not arrest as an enemy combatant because he was not on the battlefield. if there as any thing that incriminated him he would not have been released. but after 3 years in cuba without charge was released a free man without explanation. the us government only claimed he was an unlawful combatant who trained with al-qaeda if they belived as much why let such a dangerous man go? or was it just that some half with NA guy wanted a quick buck and so shopped him and the us amry belived him in it's little search to find anything worthwhile in afghanistan?
you obviously didn't read those programs otherwise the reasons for the jihad as stated at the time and not warped afterwards would be clear for you. when i post links for you which you ask for please show me the courtesy of at least flicking through it.
the same for the evidence against a true structure for al qaeda.
the complexes in afghanistan were fabrication by someone.
because that documentatu doesn't say what you like it's anti-(german) american propaganda probably spread around by those nazi (communist jews) terrorists and liberals. i point again to my previous statement about the us becoming more like 1933 germany. the documentary if you cared to watch or read it was thoroughly well researched and above all things shown on the bbc which is not allowed to be biased and must research all it's information thoroughly before it airs it. this is even stricter now to prevent a repeat of the david kelly crisis. so the repost is about as impartial as you will get.
actually people blowing each other in iraq is the fault of america. it didn't happen before but now it does. an unlawful invasion triggered that kind of uprising which has led to thousands of deaths.
what america provided iraq with during the iraq-iran war.
771 dual use technolgies.
ultra high spec computers.
armored ambulances.
helicopters.
thiodiglycol (for making mustard gas)
pathogenic and toxigenic materials that were not were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction.
anthrax bacillus (the exact same type UN inspectors would find after the first gulf war).
24 firms exported arms.
14 agents who specialised in biological warfare.
$5 billion dollars.
a little bit more than a few chemicals.
france never used it's veto on iraq. and it actually said that it would use it if no substantial evidence was found. if the inspectors were to find a nice big nuke opr something that didn't amount to a petri dish in a sceientists home and iraq refused to remove it then france almost certainly would have went to war as it did for the first gulf war.
the un resolution on afghanistan gace legal precedent for the invasion. also just for future note england has not went to war for a few hundred years. the uk (or great britain, they are different) went to war with afghanistan. a few million other uk citizens are not english and have died in these wars a bit of respect for this is due.
i'll let lordblazer defend his own statements.
The thing is cloud 9 we agree with ya and mainly i agreew ith you on the kyoto thingy.It will help our economy but the problem is and sadlyAmerica is controled by corporations in the executive branch.Thus the reason why bush won't sign the kyoto.Also another thing about the kyoto treaty is that it is a treaty and that it must go through the senate before it gets approved by the USA gov. to follow that treaty.And thats really the toughest part of anyting thats the reason why the USA never joined the League Of Nations.
Now the Corporations actually see the money in developing resources and are trying to create these new industries.Signing a treaty will actually criple these companies because its tough for a company to get into a new Industry.When I mean tough i mean having to relearn everything.Having to learn how this new industry works.Is the real big problem.Thus i think thats why these oil and energy companies are trying to dry out our cash to get started into there new money making whatchamacallit. Whatever my head hurts now im gonna go take a nap.
Not when it comes to crippling ourselves over with non-existant threats.Quote:
Better safe than sorry. This is something that both Clinton and Bush Sr. should have worked towards so it wouldn't be so bad to keep cracking down now.
Because the evidence doesn't match up to the theory. Computer models indicate a warming trend, but while actual temperature has risen in some places, it's fallen in others. stratospheric temperature, for example, has been below the average since 1994 (and at various times before that) while many others (such as Cordova, Alaska, which has cooled, Eastman, Georgia (Close by my hometown), which shows a slight cooling trend, likewise Santa Cruz, Californee--I could spend all night throwing links up) show either no change or a history of climate cooling. In fact, in the 1970's, Global Cooling was the big scare-tactic, although its proponents have switched without slowing down to the opposite end of the spectrum.Quote:
I would like to hear why it is junk science anyways.
As for opponents of Global Warming, here's a more detailed explanation of the myths regarding global warming, as well as a list of professors and scientists who discount the theory. It also might be of interest to check the Hiedelburg Appeal, the OISM Petition, and the Leipzig Declaration.
Shutting down a sizable percentage of our businesses will bolster our economy? Oooookayyy.......Quote:
it will not cripple your economy. it will in fact bolster it.
Granted. War sucks, don't it?Quote:
tut tut redneck you made a mistake. the human rights charter actually applies to all humans hence it's name. the us signed it and so is obliged to keep it.
The guy who trained with Al-Qaeda? My sympathy simply does not overflow.Quote:
lets say a man who's door you kick in in islamabad
All I can say is that I'm disgusted. Do you really hate America that much?Quote:
breach of it is breach of human rights we hung people at nuremburg for the same thing.
False. Advising and assisting in a crime are considered conspiracy. What's good enough for murder is good enough for terrorism.Quote:
section 805 declares that expert advice or assistance can be declared as material support to terrorism. that breaches the 1st and 5th ammendemnts
Except these records still require a warrant--which the Constitution allows government to do if they have a warrant. Again, false.Quote:
505 allows the government to obtain customer records and this breaches the 1st and fourth ammendments
I'm probably going to wish I didn't, but let's hear about these gag orders.Quote:
also the gag orders in the act are also illegal under us law.
First, as already noted, the US did not "break" its own constitution, nor was Al-Qaeda "pushed hard" in propoganda--after murdering 3000 people, there wasn't much need for it. Seems like you stepped in something you shouldn't have.Quote:
imilarities between nazi germany and the us in easy steps.
the reichstag and 9-11. both countries passed act following to restrict liberties. both broke their own constitution. both were passed to protect against a threat that was pushed hard in propaganda.
We're not containing "suspects" we're containing prisoners caught with a terrorist organization. Again, false. but third time's the charm, right?Quote:
camps have been set up in both countries to contain suspects without trial indefinetly. (i don't refer to death camps but concentration camps for communist before the wannasse conference)
Except that we followed 17 UN resolutions regarding Iraq. But maybe the fourth time?Quote:
both ignored an internation governing body.
First, no unlawful invasion was involved. Second, we still have international support. I'm not hoping much for #5, here....Quote:
both had international support for military actions until an unlawful invasion.
I was right. You do see the difference, I hope, between terrorists that we caught with the help of informants and people Hitler jailed for their political views? Well, apparently, not when it comes to America you don't.Quote:
both allowed people to hand over communists/terrorists and place them in camps. (can someone help me with the word for this? i've been struggling with it for a week)
The source I named already disputed this.Quote:
moazzam begg actually never trained in afghanistan.
I would say the same about the wikipedia link regarding begg... except that you posted that, but it still would have been nice if you'd looked at it.Quote:
you obviously didn't read those programs otherwise the reasons for the jihad as stated at the time and not warped afterwards would be clear for you. when i post links for you which you ask for please show me the courtesy of at least flicking through it.
And I obviously did read the programs--did you notice the parts of my post that were in quotation marks? The reasons for the Jihad, as stated at the time, (as in in OBL's own declaration) is that America is not muslim and won't let them kill Jews. When you make some wild accusation please at least show me the courtesy of looking at what I posted before drawing inferences from it.
That some work of propoganda claims so?Quote:
the same for the evidence against a true structure for al qaeda.
You know what? I'm tired, I'm getting bored with having to repeat common sense over and over again, and by trying to compare me to Hitler you have admitted that you don't have a leg to stand on--so I'm done until I feel a bit less disgusted.Quote:
ecause that documentatu doesn't say what you like it's anti-(german) american propaganda probably spread around by those nazi (communist jews) terrorists and liberals.
Bill Clinton
how would kyoto force you to shut down industires? it forces you to clean them up. that doesn't mean shtting them down. creating a renewable energy industry as well will bolster the economy because those kind of things need built and maintained. at what point do you lose here?
moazaam begg was alleaged by us officials (who needed areason to have him held illegally for 3 years) to have trained with al qaeda. it's hardly the least biased way to gain information. if the us truly beluved he was an al-qaeda operative why release him?
i don't hate america that much i hate war criminals that much.
actually to be convicted of conspracy requires two things. we'll brak it down to the stone story.
two kids talk about breaking windows with rocks and write out a plan. they ar enot yet guilt of anything. the kids start to collect rocks in a big back. they are no guilty of conspiracy. the kids could have collected rocks in the first place if they had never talked about or written down a plan and would not be guilty. but because they had the plan and the rocks are guilty. planning a terrorist act is therefore not conspiracy until you start buying lots of fertilizer.
actually section 805 does not need a warrant.
the patriot act does break the american consitution and there is plenty of deabte on the matter from various groups and a few attempts to get it changed. and if you really want to be picky the enbaling act and reichstag degree didn't truly break german law.
actually they are suspects. it's what you americans call innocent until proven guilty. they are suspectts because you refuse to try them and instead hold them indefiently much like ther germans did to all those communists. they weren't caught with a terrorist organisation because they weren't all caught on a battlefield or with abig badge saying "al-qaeda rocks" they were picked off the street on the word of the NA.
germany followd the league of nations until the sudentland like america did until it decided to fight an illegal war and make war criminals out of it's soldiers.
as pointed out earlier the invasion was illegal because it was a. not passed by the un, b. not a response to genocide, c. not in retilation. that makes it illegal. and the international support consists of new europe? ex-soviet and balkan states? grmany at least managed italy, spain and japan.
they are suspected terrorists which s illegal and suspected communists which were illegal in 1933. the difference is very slim. communists were blamed in germany for attacks and the reichstag fire in the same way these suspects are blamed for 9-11 and other attacks.
again with begg. american officials who ordered his illegal imprisonment and torture and then released him without charge are not the best people to ask to tell you if he's guilty of a crime or not.
okay we'll start witht he jihad in condensed form. iran had a revolution which turned into an islamic state which had both the technology and benfits of western society while keeping the values of a muslim country. people wanted to see this aagin in other countries and so tried it out. it failed miserably because lots of popl didn't want it (egypt, suadi, iraq etc.) and lots of people died and were put into exile. this didn't stop a few people. so up pop obl and his little friends who decided that maybe the best way is to impress the muslim world by hitting "the great satan" that way folk will be impressed and might be won over. they decide to attack two embassies in africa. not much happens to public opinion so they try again with a bigger attack. which gets them thoroughly bombed.
the program was researched, checked, and shown by the bbc. an organisation which is wholy unbiased and even more so now after the david kelly problem. this kind of means that it's probably unbiased otherwise it wouldn't have been shown. on the bc. in what way is an unbiased documentary, propaganda? it may disagree with many of our views but having been declared biased means it can not be propaganda.
I have to say George W. Bush. He proposed KILLING all of the grizzly bears—an ENDANGERED SPECIES— in a WILDERNESS AREA just so a freaking silver mine could be built there!!!!!!! Sorry about the caps, they help to emphasize my point. Also, he invaded a pretty much innocent country just because they MAY be able to build WMDs, according to intelligence! Of course Bush said in various speeches (actual quotes) "they have nuc-yuh-lur weapons", "they have chemical weapons", "they have rape rooms"! Also, even though it doesnt really matter, it just bugs me when people say "nuc-yuh-lur". Phew. Sorry about that if it was kinda ranting too much, but i just need to get it out. :ty: for listening (even if you didnt)!
Reagan and Clinton tie!
He "invaded" (in reality, liberated) a country that was ruled by a man with a history of torturing and slaughtering mass numbers of his own people, a man who was pursuing nuclear technology and had the means and motive to develop and deliver chemical and biological weapons. Plus, he really did have rape rooms, torture chambers, etc. Think what you want about the Grizzlies, but at least gain a bit of knowledge on other subjects before you form opinions about them.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unknown Guru
I'm baffeled at the idea of people saying Clinton...that just blows my mind that someone could say he's the worst president we've had (especially considering the president we have currently).
Nixon and Bush Jr. tie for me.
That doesn't change the fact that he invaded that country for one reason, and that reason is power. Bush has no humanitarian agenda, and his war is anything but moral.Quote:
He "invaded" (in reality,liberatedlol) a country that was ruled by a man with a history of torturing and slaughtering mass numbers of his own people, a man who was pursuing nuclear technology and had the means and motive to develop and deliver chemical and biological weapons. Plus, he really did have rape rooms, torture chambers, etc. Think what you want about the Grizzlies, but at least gain a bit of knowledge on other subjects before you form opinions about them.
Agreed, only Nixon wasn't as bad or as stupid as Bush Jr.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMKA
if bush was some kind of savious who goes around liberating countries because they have nasty leaders then he would have invaded zimbabwe, korea, burma, sudan.
but he hasn't.........
he singled out one country which compared to the rest wasn't the worst in any way.
the genocide in sudan is far worse than anything to have happened in iraq. burma has used chemical weapons on civillians and continues to do so. korea has nuclear weapons and a poor human rights record. zimbabwe just bulldozed 100,000 homes this week, rigged an election and has a habit of killing people.
why not them?
I'm not aiming to flame, but the grand majority of the posters here are screaming empty chants against "human rights" and then say, as a vice, that Bush won't tax the rich more.
They claim that the Iraqi War was pointless (rightly so), but then say we should focus on global warming, a liberal scare tactic? (!!)
It's said that we didn't really mean to grant peace to Iraq, but who cares? This is almost as bad as saying any action a man takes is "immoral" if he derives pleasure out of it (it has no "moral import", I'm sure).
They haven't been insistent that they wanted America destroyed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
I don't really agree with the War on Iraq, but not for the reasons that most people (Leftists) claim. I think it was irrational and foolish, but trying to undermine it by saying that Iraq wasn't THAT bad, and that we should focus on all of the other evils in the world is claiming that we're impotent against evil.
And, really, everyone knows FDR is one of the worst presidents ever. lol @ socialism
The Redneck makes some good points - global warming is not fact, yet. Scientists, according to an article I read about the subject, claim to have discovered the threshold concerning global warming, whereby if we cross that threshold, there is no turning back. However, they don't know whether we will ever reach that state, or if the recent(past couple of decades) changes have merely been a temporary trend which will peak and drop off. It is still largely unknown.
To the issue of revamping our comapnies: no, I don't think we should completely change all of our companies. Yes, I think we should work towards alternative fuels. No, that won't happen anytime soon due to the oil monopolies having a strong hold on Congress. No, I don't think we should to "clean up the air" or any higher good like that, but purely in rational self-interest: oil won't last forever. We have the ability, the monetary means, and the equipment to research cheaper, more cost-effective alternative fuels. It's a slow process. If we make a law right now limiting the CO2 output of all factories, many will have to be shut down(at least temporarily), which would severely impact the economy.
Now, to the Patriot Act. Most of the Act does nothing against the Constitution. However, some parts of it(I can look up the sections if this is disputed) limit the necessity of a warrant - which goes directly against the 4th and 14th Amendments(most violations of the Bill of Rights also goes against the 14th, though - it merely states that the law applies equally to everybody).
Most people also don't realize that the Homeland Security Act that Bush signed(which was different than the one first proposed by the Democrats) invalidates the Whistleblower Act - which protected federal whistleblowers from retaliation. What possible good could that do? Beats me.
Now, to the UN. This is where I agree with The Redneck again. The UN lost its right to voice its objections after Rwanda in 1994. However, the US and all other countries that could've stopped that genocide were equally responsible for it, as well(which is the biggest thing I have against Clinton). The UN definitely requires some sort of overhaul. It is a great idea, but it hasn't been working according to its ideals.
EDIT: And I still stand by what I said - that Andrew Jackson was the worst President in history.
See, though I support the war, I really respect people who hold these types of opinions about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hachifusa
If you want to disagree with it, sure, say the motives may not have been right, but it's asenine to say it wasn't a good thing to do. The Iraqi people have tasted freedom for the first time in three decades, and the world is a safer place without a dictator with means, motive, and opportunity to pursue weapons of mass destruction and slaughter hundreds of his own people, not to mention the support of terrorist organizations that could cause extreme numbers of civilian deaths and financial costs. Say it's for oil, say it's to impress Bush Sr., say it's to get revenge, whatever (though they're all idiotically false), but it's ridiculous to say that Iraq (and the world) isn't (and won't be) better off since Saddam was ousted, which wouldn't have happened unless Bush made it happen.
The current idiot running the office. GWB, that guy who's leading us towards the apocalypse.
First of all, peace was not granted to Iraq. Iraq is the last place I would refer to as 'peaceful'. We didn't grant the Iraqi's "freedom" either. We are going to give them a "democratically elected" (:p) lapdog government (Just like we have done with every other country we have tried to set up "democracy" in) Saddam was a bad man, yes, and I am glad he is gone, but does that justify murder on our part? We killed anywhere from 20,00-100,000 civilians alone. That doesn't take into account all of the Iraqi soldiers that we killed. (They were fighting for thier country in the same way that any American soldier did) And that still doesn't factor in all of the American soldiers who have been killed (our own people have been killed, and for what?) and that still doesn't factor in all of the wounded people left over from the war. (Including civilians, enemy soldiers, and coalition soldiers) and these numbers will only continue to climb.Quote:
It's said that we didn't really mean to grant peace to Iraq, but who cares? This is almost as bad as saying any action a man takes is "immoral" if he derives pleasure out of it (it has no "moral import", I'm sure).
All of this destruction, and yet there is still a possibility that the "lapdog government" that will have control over Iraq will become another Saddam. If this happens (and it has happened in the past) the United States will do nothing about it. (Until that guy stops kissing American ass, like Saddam did.)
The only good that came out of this was the ousting of Hussein, and he is not going to be replaced by some god-send of a democracy. It'll be another American lap dog government (Which was what Saddam was to begin with)Quote:
If you want to disagree with it, sure, say the motives may not have been right, but it's asenine to say it wasn't a good thing to do.
Although they are "free'er" than they once were (and thank god for that) they still aren't going to get the freedom that you and I recieve here in America. Our government doesn't give a damn about Iraqi freedom, and the leaders that Iraq will have will all be wearing the American leash.Quote:
The Iraqi people have tasted freedom for the first time in three decades
It was for none of these things (although Oil plays a part). It's about geopolitical dominance. To beleive otherwise is asanine.Quote:
Say it's for oil, say it's to impress Bush Sr., say it's to get revenge, whatever (though they're all idiotically false),
If there's one thing I don't understand, it's the "end justifies the means" argument. "We got rid of Hussein, so whatever we did was okay." No, that's not true. It would only be true if you looked at the actions themselves, without the result, and could say the same thing. I don't think I could just look at the US actions and decisions and reasonings leading up to Iraq in and of themselves and say, "those were all good things." Actually, I know I couldn't.
I don't think that's true. For one thing the government of Iraq is much more religious than what Bush would want, being controlled by the Shiite coallition. Actually their probably much more like Iran than the secular democracy that most Americans would want in Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by nik0tine
It's funny you bring this up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
When I wrote that, I was hoping that no one would take it that I was advocating that principle. I'm not. I'm claiming that while I am against the war, it is not because of the reasons a lot of people claim. Yes, I think we had every right to invade Iraq. No, I don't think we should have. We outsed Saddam, which is good, but we didn't use poor means.
The war was justified in the sense that Iraq was a rebel nation. Any nation that doesn't recognize that men are fundamentally free, and that they have certain inalienable rights (a doctrine that is sadly lost in almsot every nation across the globe) is a "criminal" nation and therefore has no "rights" (it is ridiculous to claim that Saddam had the "right" to murder people - because the people didn't stop him). It doesn't matter how fascism/collectivism is initiated. Saddam Hussein and his anti-human government had no right to enslave his people.
However, on the premise of rational self-interest (you've talked about that before, Raist), the war was pointless. It tore our nation up, sent millions off to die, and has not helped towards anything. And, nik0tine is right, even though I don't want to admit it - the only way it would work is if a puppet government was established, which is a use of indirect force, anyway.
It's in that vein that the war was morally sound if impractical and a waste of time. And, I can see the point others attempt to make: if we were going to attack Iraq, we'd have to go after the rest of the world (such is the world today). Very few countries are free and none are wholly free (not even America). That is what I referred to. I'm trying to keep positive, here, haha. At least we might as well get some good out of this.
so sadamme has no right to enslave his people but mugawbe does? whoever the hell runs sudan does? the burmese government? they all have lovely little right to be genocidal maniacs while sadamme didn't?
sadamme was not even guilty of conspiracy to attack america.
look at what happened in ethiopa this week? is that okay? what is going to be done about that? hee haw. america is too busy fighting a war which i started and is unable to finish.
hussein's connections to terrorism is a vaguery and doubtful. the war in iraq has seen an increase in terrorism in not only thst country but muslims who are sick, sorry and tired of watching other muslims getting the crap bombed out of them in every corner of the earth.
bush has proven that you cannot continue to kick a man without getting your ankles bitten.
the muslim world will no longer stand for illegal attacks on countries. iraq compared to other countries was a drop in the ocean. but the anger that it has caused will drown thousands.
No, but we can't hit all countries. What, do you want to drop an atomic bomb on the entire region and call it a day? We have two options: either we stop fighting wars of this nature and let the countries rot as they will inevitably will, or we hit every country that is acting against its people. Seeing as how that would require to fix nearly every country, I don't see the point. And even if we did, as you're saying, we can't do it all at one time. Please, write to your senator to advocate hitting the next country. Shall we attack the Burmese, first?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
(By the way: said "lovely little right" doesn't exist. Did you listen to a word I was saying?)
No, but he was a hell of a lot more open about his anti-American views. Technically, they all hate America (they have to, because we represent freedom and achievement, which goes against their credo), but Saddam openly talked poorly about America.Quote:
sadamme was not even guilty of conspiracy to attack america.
What happened? And if it was violent, I'm almost certain it's not okay; why are you implying that I would think that? And granted, we got into the war so we are too busy. We should never have been a part of the war.Quote:
look at what happened in ethiopa this week? is that okay? what is going to be done about that? hee haw. america is too busy fighting a war which i started and is unable to finish.
...how was the attack illegal?Quote:
the muslim world will no longer stand for illegal attacks on countries. iraq compared to other countries was a drop in the ocean. but the anger that it has caused will drown thousands.
And this isn't flaming, but I'm being serious: did you read anything I said at all? o_O
First of all, what's wrong with being anti american?Quote:
No, but he was a hell of a lot more open about his anti-American views. Technically, they all hate America (they have to, because we represent freedom and achievement, which goes against their credo), but Saddam openly talked poorly about America.
Secondly, freedom and achievment arent the reasons muslims hate america. Look at what the western world has done to Islam throughout history. There, you will find your answer.
...you answered yourself. Hating the essence that America was based on (human worth, ability and production) means that if one hates America one hates humanity.Quote:
Originally Posted by nik0tine
Of course, if you're taking about America's horrific foreign policy or the idiots in charge, well, hate away. But it's not what the United States was meant to represent. Capitalism is only a shadow of what it once was.
So if we keep to ourselves and let the UN do its job around the world, then we're letting others be slaughtered and starve...but if we take action against our inevitable enemies because the UN is incompetent, we're overbearing and militaristic? Where's the middle ground?
Iraq was a continuing and growing threat--to the U.S., to its neighbors, and to its own people. Operation Iraqi Freedom alleviated that threat. It hasn't angered any more people than already hated America, only now they have an opportunity to kill infidels because we're closer.
How many terrorist training camps are there in Ethiopia? How much does the Burmese government spend toward providing weapons and training to people who wish to slaughter as many civilians as possible? How many of his own villages has Mugawbe cleaned out with the nerve gas and blistering agents he's sworn to use against the United States? Ever stop to realize that Saddam was a threat to everybody, and is no more?
Yes. Look at what the Western world has done to Islam throughout history. Look at the extended hands we've held out, hoping to bring them up to the level of the rest of the world. Look at the continued slaughter and mistreatment of Muslims by Muslims that the Western World apparently hasn't done enough to stop. Look at the Islamic nations which have driven themselves to nearly third-world standards because those eeeeeevil Western nations haven't submitted themselves to poverty so that the world is equal. Look at the millions of Israeli civilians who have died simply because they were Jewish.
nik0tine, there was one point in history when the conflict between the Western World, especially America, and the Muslim world became prominent. Look up the Battle of Tripolli...then look up how it started.
Cloud 9, not only was the war in Iraq far from illegal, but the Muslim world has been standing for truly illegal attacks against non-Muslim countries throughout history. It's not the legality that upsets them, it's the infidels meddling in the affairs of Islamic governments.
why the war in iraq was illegal. it was not in the defence of an ally who had been attack, it was not retaliation, there was not attack imminent, there was no genocide taking place. the un did not pass it. either one of these would have been enough to make the war legal........ but none were. which is a bugger really since it means that the war was llegal, the commanders and president war criminals and those follwing their orders also war criminals. we sentenced goering to detah for bombing civillians out with the rules of war.
how many terrorist camps were there in iraq? the burmese government spends a whole load of time and money using chemical weapons on it's on people, mugawbe instead o using nerve gas just bulldozes villages and starves his people, execustes a few, and commits a few humble slaughters every few months. but that aside all these countries are perfectly nice. and there is no exucse to let the darfur crisis continue. morality and law compels all countries to act in the case of genocide.
what happened in ethiopa....... people thought the election was rigged. so had a nice little protest. so they army rounded them up and took them to labour camps. that was jolly good fun.
human rights has never forced america to do anything to help people in the past. otherwise we would have had troops in sudan by now but we don't.
if you want to fight for humanity, fight for humanity. but do not pick and choose your wars based on their geographical location or resources. choose them by what needs done first. iraq should not have been top of the list if indeed bus has sent out to cleanse the world of all evil.
First thing first.
On any campaign you must take out the "key" targets first. You must attack the one that is an image to the rest. Etc. Iraq fits very nicely in there. I know none in my family have ever heard of what you mentioned in the places you mentioned. But mention Saddame and they call him that "evil Bas*ard". And this was how my whole area was. Saddame was known. He(not neccesarily Iraq) was a key target. Iraq just adds to the equation.
Second as to whether or not a war is legal/just I aggree with St. Thomas Aquinas who said-
Quote:
Originally Posted by St. Thomas Aquinas
I cut out part of the first one due to the fact that it sorta went off the topic matter that we were discusing.
I may not fully aggree with Aquinas but he does make some good arguments.
From Aquinas we have the soveirgn command it(the government), we have the just cause, Iraqi freedom, However the just intention may not be there. I don't know why Bush went into Iraq. But I am certian he didn't do it just to free them, that may have been the last thing on his mind. This doesn't really change that many soldiers ARE fighting for Iraqi freedom. The war is thus just or as I would put it legal.
However that doesn't mean we timed it perfectly.... we could have waited till we were finished in Afghanistan... of course Bush may have served both his terms before we were completed it there. But slow and steady is the way to win. We moved too fast, imo. Definately could have been better timed.. though waiting till long also would have been wise.
PS, Aquinas in that same article says that a war can't be made in pre-emption. and that is correct, or assumptions can be wrong. and a war kills people.. do we want to kill people on an assumption?
Nope. I entirely agree. It's why this war was so damned worthless. Not that action was necessary - striking first is not always the worst case - but rather had they even stated that they were going to attack America, that would have been enough. "Pre-emptive attacks" go against the principles of rational self-interest that America was founded on (and which has thus been thrown out the window).Quote:
Originally Posted by ShunNakamura
Andrew Johnson.
He tried to undo the freedom that Abraham Lincoln gave to the slaves, and that was just wrong.
No, he didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy the Clown
He didn't undo anything, but he didn't do ANYTHING to help start rebuild and intergrate the South. He let black codes and other constitutional disgraces run rampant, and pretty much just sat back and watched.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hachifusa
EDIT:
There's the problem right there. "Inevitable." Iraq hadn't done anything against us. The "preemptive strike" bullQuote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
But that wasn't the reason we went into Iraq. "Preemptive strike" and "weapons of mass destruction." Neither of which had much in the way of objective evidence. I could make up justifications for Hitler's regime, but that doesn't mean that any of them would be part of his actual rational. And I repeat: the ends do NOT justify the means. The means must be justified in and of themselves.Quote:
How many terrorist training camps are there in Ethiopia? How much does the Burmese government spend toward providing weapons and training to people who wish to slaughter as many civilians as possible? How many of his own villages has Mugawbe cleaned out with the nerve gas and blistering agents he's sworn to use against the United States? Ever stop to realize that Saddam was a threat to everybody, and is no more?
1. It was in the defense of not only our own country, but the millions of people in Iraq and surrounding countries that were at risk simply because Saddam had been left in charge.Quote:
why the war in iraq was illegal. (1) it was not in the defence of an ally who had been attack, (2) it was not retaliation, (3) there was not attack imminent, (4) there was no genocide taking place. (5) the un did not pass it.
2. It was in retaliation for the 3,000+ innocent civilians that were slaughtered in cold blood by the terrorists that received training, weapons, and funds from Saddam.
3. There was an attack imminent, as soon as Saddam took out some of the chemical/biological weapons he had stockpiled, or continued his pursuit of nuclear weapons, and it would have been a devastating attack, most likely against more civilians.
4. Though not labeled "genocide", Saddam had been torturing and executing hundreds of thousands of his own people for decades.
5. The UN did not pass it because it was being controlled by those who have been shown to have been involved in illegal dealings with Iraq. If a mob boss buys a jury, is he really innocent?
Thus, in no way is Operation Iraqi Freedom against any international laws, and every member of our military is independent in their status as a war criminal. Again, just because you disagree with something doesn't mean everybody who has anything to do with it is evil, immoral, or a criminal.
1. Saddam had stated many times his intent to bring America down. Many, many times, especially during/after Desert Storm.Quote:
Not that action was necessary - striking first is not always the worst case - but rather (1) had they even stated that they were going to attack America, that would have been enough. (2) "Pre-emptive attacks" go against the principles of rational self-interest that America was founded on (and which has thus been thrown out the window).
2. America was founded upon principles of freedom. Nothing about a justified pre-emptive attack goes against the American effort to protect its freedom and the lives and safety of its citizens.
1. Saddam not only had a long history of hatred and threats toward America (intent), he had posession of and was further pursuing deadlier and more powerful ways to kill mass numbers of people. Not to mention the terrorist outfits they gave a big boost to, which have not only attacked the United States and her allies, but caused the deaths of countless numbers of their own supporters.Quote:
There's the problem right there. "Inevitable." (1) Iraq hadn't done anything against us. The "preemptive strike" bull
2. Do those "inevitable murderers" have a history of murder, weapons to murder, a motive to murder, and a declaration that they will murder again? Then yes, it wouldn't be unreasonable to consider them an "inevitable murderer", or to have them locked up so they don't strike again, and again and again.
1. Why does the reason matter? If something good comes from an intent even for something bad, is it not still something good?Quote:
(1) But that wasn't the reason we went into Iraq. (2) "Preemptive strike" and "weapons of mass destruction." Neither of which had much in the way of objective evidence. (3) I could make up justifications for Hitler's regime, but that doesn't mean that any of them would be part of his actual rational. (4) And I repeat: the ends do NOT justify the means. The means must be justified in and of themselves.
2. Actually, both of which had quite a bit of evidence to support them.
3. You're been a worthy debate on many subjects, please don't resort to comparing your opponent to Hitler.
4. There's a difference in the means--as in, the way something is gone about--and the reason--as in, why something was pursued. Either way, in this case, neither the means nor the reason would nearly qualify to overshadow the ends.
That last bit depends on whether or not you believe that the ends rights the means. Some do not believe that.
As for Iraq/Saddam straight out attacking the US. All I have to say is dream on. Saddam may have been one large bastard, but he ain't stupid. Even if he killed several thousand/millions of americans, he knew what would happen. He couldn't fight off the retaliation of even a weakened america. And America would have had support for sure. The UN would have been on him far worse.. etc. He may push the line but I doubt he would cross it. This "he would inevitably attack" stuff is highly unlikely.
As for threats... You have seen what insecure bullies do right? They may threaten the big boys, "stay out of this or we'll mess you" but what happens when the big boys actualy do get in it? Who then runs? In my experience it is the bully who hightails it.. and that is what saddam is. A cowardly bully. He needed removed but he wasn't much of a real threat himself.
Which brings to head funding terriorism. He, himself, may have feared retailiation. But I am certian many a coward has hired assaisins before. So this is definately a hit.
The pre-emptive war, in which we attack Iraq before Iraq attacks us, doesn't truely exist since Iraq itself probably wouldn't be on our doorsteps. The only reasons that hold are the funding of terriorists, The abuse of his own people, and his refusal to follow the UN's orders. I may have missed one or two.. but they AREN'T "he would have attacked us anyways".
Iraq may not have directly attacked America, but they would have further supported terrorist organizations that would attack America. Just because the attack is indirect doesn't mean Saddam wouldn't be behind it. Even still, you've got the direct refusal to obey the UN and the slaughter and torture of his own people, plus the obvious threat he posed to the surrounding population.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShunNakamura
ah the jolly old argument.... he had stockpiles of chemical weapons (which noone could find apparently). so he really had plans to launch a petri dish of buetilinuem with the missle that struggled to get outwith his own border. be afraid be very afraid.
and those terrorist links all those message he took the time to not reply to. yep that was a great connection full of plans and evil conspiracy that was. and churchil was a commie...........
and why doesn't america defend the sudanese people? why don't the defend the koreans? the burmese? singapore? russia? chine? ethiopia? saudi arabia? israel? turkey? uzbekistan? algeria? egypt?
yeah cos those people don't need defending at all. in fact in uzbekistan america hasa lovely little air base. how's the for support to a man with nasty habit of boiling people. yeah a joyous place to live in. no need to defend them.
defend people against a true genocide not one which is "kinda like one but not quite" like in sudan.
and considering that the UN said it better take longer finding WMD because it wasn't exactly sure if sadamme had them or not. and oh my god neither could america. then yeah the UN is so corrupt because they lunged into a war incriminating all soldeirs who fight in it. those dirty UN people and their lies...............
and while i'm at it. if a mob boss buys a jury and is found innocent, then yes he is innocent. he was tried in a court of his peers. or would you just like to send them off to egypt like bush allows other suspects to be?
It may just be how I use pre-emptive. Pre-emptive would be to strike the terriorists he was funding, since they were the one's going to attack. *shurg* doesn't get to the source but it is how I use the word.
As for the other two.. those are the only reasons why I am even somewhat for a war. The guy needed his rear handed to him.
As for why not attacking all the other countires.... How strong do you happen to think we are?! Come now, no one country has the power to attack every corrupt ruler at the same time. And even if we could.. you want to know what those nations would look like afterwards? Cause we sure as heck wouldn't have the resources to rebuild them.
As for Iraq. Iraq was the near perfect starting place to ousting such leaders. I have explained it before. In our world when saving people tactics is what matters not solving the problems in order of how much trouble they are causing. Iraq was a tactical target... as well as target of a abusive leader. The other nations wouldn't have had the tactical value of Iraq. So Iraq goes first.
damn it he wasn't funding noone. his communications between him and bin laden where merely of bin laden sending him messages and him ingnoring them. yes he supported the war on israel but so did most other arab countries in much the same fashion.
my point was not that we should attack all those other countries. i know it would be logistically impossible. but my question was why iraq of the sudanese genocide? why iraq over the use of gases in burma? why iraq over korea's nukes? why oppose the way iraq treats it's people but support uzbekistan? why not only support egypt, libya, and suadi arabia do we insist on sending suspects to be tortured to them? it's bare hypocricy. iraq was not the no.1 problem on any case at the time. it was merly convineint for it's location.
I am still surprised and very worried that people STILL believe the bs that Sadam was funding Bin Laden. It's actually tragic. I won't say anymore, my record atEotW is equally as tragic :(
Ignorance is bliss.
Iraq may not have been funding Bin Laden(did I say that? if so I must have really been out of it.. that I don't know.. maybe, maybe not.), but I am certian he funded other terriorists.
As for the first target.
If you begin a campaign you must first situate yourself in a good position.
Good position
1)Access to other targets. This blocks out starting wiht korea
2)Easy to resuply. Pretty much null since we can supply just about anywhere efficently.
3)Defensible- I think we could easily defend most locations.
Etc... mostly null.. in our world it is easy to do much. So access to other targets is key to position. Now Iraq.. isn't it in the middle of everything? It is a near perfect base to spread freedom from.
Next when you attack a target, you want to make the most impression with the least amount of loss. This botches Korea... Korea could easily blast our Allies in Japan, or South Korea. And it would just be an ugly war. Most of the others I have seen listed would be an easier target. Though all of them would give them less of an impression. Heh.. who cares about sudan? I haven't heard anything at all about it around here. "We attacked sudan? Why would we do that? My son best not get shoot." etc. Attack Iraq... "Blast that bastard to hell," someone in my area told a soldier.
hrmm.. Iraq=sitting duck, Saddam=well known target, Iraq= best target due to impact per man power used.
I think I have tried this again and again. You have to start somewhere. And you want to have a strong start. Iraq is better then most to start in.
but was it morally right? legally?
tactically yes it may have been a good move (before there was no border to move into iran). but can you defend an action that way when it was morally wrong?
But it still wasn't morally wrong.
We had at least 2 out of three, and arguably 3 out of 3 to make it right,(refering to Aquinas here).
He was harming his own people, he wasn't a good guy to have around, etc.. there were plenty of other reasons as well. The only reason to go after someone else isn't cause they do something he doesn't, but cause they do it on a larger scale, more publicly, etc. But to start a war against abusive rulers(morally right, yes?) why not get a good start? Such as Iraq. It fits all the neccesary components to be a good target in such a war(both morally and tactically).