Fairweather Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 saying we've always been wrong so therefore we should just keep being wrong is not logical woodrow wilson was an asshole, as many historians have said it seems odd that so many people begin their counter-diatribes w/ "you don't really believe that" - why in the fuck would they write such lengthy responses if they didn't? it's not like they're running for president and therefore NEED to lie. I didn't say wrong--I said, rhetorically, "right or wrong." Trying to defend ideas you agree with is noble, but can't you at least admit that Joe's view is somewhat narrow and could use some insight? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 you're also having fun w/ the history, FW - you're attributing the 1000 deaths in the draft riots to lincoln? uh, he sent in troops to bring an end to a violent riot begun by pissed off micks who didn't want to fight for niggers. and while lincoln certainly shit on the constitution, he did at least do it for the purpose of freeing a people it was within his jurisdiction to emancipate. similiarly, adam's alien acts were never really enforced, and repealed by jefferson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 you're also having fun w/ the history, FW - you're attributing the 1000 deaths in the draft riots to lincoln? uh, he sent in troops to bring an end to a violent riot begun by pissed off micks who didn't want to fight for niggers. and while lincoln certainly shit on the constitution, he did at least do it for the purpose of freeing a people it was within his jurisdiction to emancipate. similiarly, adam's alien acts were never really enforced, and repealed by jefferson Refresh my memory: were the draft riots before the so-called "Emancipation Proclamation" or after? And the proclamation was pure political expediency that specifically did not free slaves in border states. Wilson's Sedition act was certainly enforced - I can't remember the famous trial right now...I'll look it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 can't you at least admit that Joe's view is somewhat narrow and could use some insight? joe's been around a bunch of years and has a sharp mind, so it would be foolish of me to dismiss his well considered opinions offhand regretably, i'm a thoroughly iconoclastic nihilistic twit and would have to admit the whole cycle of history (yes cycle, not linear path from bad to good that you itimated at w/ the "forward" comment) will never cease and the agonies of man will not end until man himself ends - i'm mostly just intersted in trying to make the brief stay i have here, and that of my kids, will be as less-bad as possible, which necesitates opposing war in all but the most astonishingly clear-cut cases of self-defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 he did at least do it for the purpose of freeing a people it was within his jurisdiction to emancipate. This statement is completely untrue. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation applied only to slaves in Confederate States. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 you're also having fun w/ the history, FW - you're attributing the 1000 deaths in the draft riots to lincoln? uh, he sent in troops to bring an end to a violent riot begun by pissed off micks who didn't want to fight for niggers. and while lincoln certainly shit on the constitution, he did at least do it for the purpose of freeing a people it was within his jurisdiction to emancipate. similiarly, adam's alien acts were never really enforced, and repealed by jefferson Refresh my memory: were the draft riots before the so-called "Emancipation Proclamation" or after? And the proclamation was pure political expediency that specifically did not free slaves in border states. Wilson's Sedition act was certainly enforced - I can't remember the famous trial right now...I'll look it up. the EP was made it late '62 (and certainly there was a political calculation that it would prevent england from throwing in w/ the south, given their severe distaste for the peculiar institution), the draft riots occured shortly after g-burg in '63 - lincoln knew he couldn't touch slavery in the north until after the south was dealt w/ b/c otherwise maryland would go into full melt-down and lose him washington d.c. - at any rate, the 13th amendment was passed in '65. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 i'm mostly just intersted in trying to make the brief stay i have here, and that of my kids, will be as less-bad as possible how about your wife? mom? dad? any brothers? how about friends? friends of friends? wow. pretty jaded, and rather, ahem, Republican in sentiment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 This statement is completely untrue. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation applied only to slaves in Confederate States. lincoln refused to recognize the confederacy as an independent country Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 wow. pretty jaded, and rather, ahem, Republican in sentiment. certianly jaded - but truth picks the person, not the other way around - i don't understand how anyone can see it differently - again, quoting gibbon, who put it so sweetly when he summarized history as "little more than the register of the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind." i don't see either political party as having a soul - they've both shown historically their willingness to trade in any of their values in order to get power - i don't really blame them for it either, it's roughly the same thing as lions tearing up zebras in the serengeti - and like lions, i don't want to trust them or have them in any position to hurt me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 (edited) This statement is completely untrue. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation applied only to slaves in Confederate States. lincoln refused to recognize the confederacy as an independent country Do you really think that GWB's actions are any worse than, say, those of Andrew Jackson (Trail of Tears), William McKinley (Spanish American War), Woodrow Wilson (war monger beneath a guise of liberal/pacifist), LBJ (botched Vietnam), FDR (attempted dictator), or the administration of Ulysses Grant? I'm just offering some perspective. I don't think GWB is outside the norm. Edited March 2, 2008 by Fairweather Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 (edited) This statement is completely untrue. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation applied only to slaves in Confederate States. lincoln refused to recognize the confederacy as an independent country Do you really think that GWB's actions are any worse than, say those of Andrew Jackson (Trail of Tears), William McKinley (Spanish American War), Woodrow Wilson (war monger beneath a guise of liberal/pacifist), FDR (attempted dictator), or the administration of Ulysses Grant? i've mentioned several of those guys in past threads as assholes of course, so no need to switch horses now - i'm not terribly worried about comparing the level of asshole - bad is bad. fdr left a better legacy overall for certain than bush. jackson's on the 20$ and i seriously doubt gw will be getting any monetary enshrinement now grant at least could do SOMETHING right before he was president. mckinley had better taste in vice-presidents and at least could WIN the stupid little wars he got us involved in. certianly, GW will be leaving our country in a weaker place at the end of his presidency then all the prez's you mentioned, except maybe grant (who at least had a fine beard, and oh yeah, also managed to make it onto the 50$!) Edited March 2, 2008 by ivan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 you added LBJ - he i think it a far more interesting prez than GW, and more tragic - i think his "great society" was far more sincere and humane than bush's "compassionate conservatism" and it was the republican's crucifixion of the democrats for "losing" china and the korean debacle that helped push him over the line into escalting vietnam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 how about your wife? mom? dad? any brothers? how about friends? friends of friends? of course for them too - i just am not very optimistic it'll happen - how much longer can this house of cards we've built go on standing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephH Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 Oh, I do know the history, which makes the accomplishments of the four horsemen in the 90's all the more stunning and unprecedented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 2, 2008 Author Share Posted March 2, 2008 This statement is completely untrue. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation applied only to slaves in Confederate States. lincoln refused to recognize the confederacy as an independent country Do you really think that GWB's actions are any worse than, say those of Andrew Jackson (Trail of Tears), William McKinley (Spanish American War), Woodrow Wilson (war monger beneath a guise of liberal/pacifist), FDR (attempted dictator), or the administration of Ulysses Grant? i've mentioned several of those guys in past threads as assholes of course, so no need to switch horses now - i'm not terribly worried about comparing the level of asshole - bad is bad. fdr left a better legacy overall for certain than bush. jackson's on the 20$ and i seriously doubt gw will be getting any monetary enshrinement now grant at least could do SOMETHING right before he was president. mckinley had better taste in vice-presidents and at least could WIN the stupid little wars he got us involved in. certianly, GW will be leaving our country in a weaker place at the end of his presidency then all the prez's you mentioned, except maybe grant (who at least had a fine beard, and oh yeah, also managed to make it onto the 50$!) Grant was one of the worst presidents we've had. And who gives a shit if he's on our currency? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 2, 2008 Author Share Posted March 2, 2008 how about your wife? mom? dad? any brothers? how about friends? friends of friends? of course for them too - i just am not very optimistic it'll happen - how much longer can this house of cards we've built go on standing? oh, chicken little, the sky is falling! things looks pretty damn good today compared to the civil war, any year in the great depression, the depths of WWII, etc etc. fuckin-a. this thread is about whether you are better off now than 4 years ago, not whether the whole country has gone to shit - IT HASN'T. Get a fucking grip people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 2, 2008 Author Share Posted March 2, 2008 Oh, I do know the history, which makes the accomplishments of the four horsemen in the 90's all the more stunning and unprecedented. *yawn* there's nothing stunning or unprecedented about the last 4 or 8 years in the US, or 20 for that matter. at least not in a negative sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 Grant was one of the worst presidents we've had. certainly not disputing that, merely pointing out that he was actually competent at doing something before he got the job. and hey, he was capable of sensible elocution too - he wrote autobiography as he was dying of cancer that regained his lost family fortune - can't imagine anyone being so inspired to read whatever gw's ghost-writers might be able to come up with. grant and bush. both alcoholics. both failed businessmen. both waged wars on brown people. both republicans. both total failures as president largely attributed to appointing cronies who ran the country into the ground while they're were doing god knows what. why do you think bush is better than grant? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 oh, chicken little, the sky is falling! i'm not an avian prognosticator every ww2 vet i've talked to said they were certain we would win, and that we would emerge as strong and as powerful as we did - i don't sense that level of optimism about our current Global War on Everything (for sure, it's not a good sign when the italians bail out on you ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JANUS Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 Not to mention that Mr. Optimism has ignored that every economic indicator is showing that we are circling the bowl headed for the "R" word or worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 how about your wife? mom? dad? any brothers? how about friends? friends of friends? of course for them too - i just am not very optimistic it'll happen - how much longer can this house of cards we've built go on standing? that's just the typical northwest melancholy yer experiencing. it'll lift a bit come spring. i think you must agree that where we have come to is a mixed bag, with many positives and some negatives, but overall, it's pretty good, yes? take any metric, be it wealth distribution, life expectancy, access to education, freetime (ooh that's a tough one domestically nowadays! forget that one....) but overall, things are pretty damn good. yer sitting there typing this stuff on your computer on the internet, in itself a marvel that is yes in many ways useful and enjoyable.... and it's been through the hard work and curiosity and inspiration of a lot of different people that we've managed to find the positives that we have.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JANUS Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 did you just dose Sexual Chocolate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 Not to mention that Mr. Optimism has ignored that every economic indicator is showing that we are circling the bowl headed for the "R" word or worse. recessions happen (IF we are in one or headed for one). Did we not get out of the great depression? things in general are cyclical. the economy is cyclical, politics are cyclical. there is life and there is death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 did you just dose Sexual Chocolate? nope, haven't for years, but it might help reorient your perspective! sickie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JANUS Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 I hope you are correct. I just don't remember the country being here before. 9 trillion is a large number, and we keep getting told that it doesn't matter. Does it? That I don't know, and I don't really fully understand what it will mean to our position in global economics. It seems other countries are better positioned to become what we have been. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.