Palin: The Next 'Ronald Reagan'?

Watermark said:
DAMMIT!

How can you know more about history than me?! It's not fair, you've had a year headstart.
Click to expand...

I've taken a class literally on Lincoln's life from start to finish. We were tested on things like his children's names, the years they were born, the year he was married, his occupations, and political goings-on at the time.

I've taken 2 other upper level histories that were focused on the Civil War and the period leading up to it.

That's why I don't join in the Civil War discussions with you, Dixie, and ThreeDee.

You all say dumb shit like that and it would be too much to correct. :)
 
Watermark said:
I thought it was FDR?

The twenties and thirties were definitely the most fascist times for America and the world in general.
Click to expand...

FDR brought us awfully close as well, but not as close as ol' Abe.

FDR's ideology was more akin to Socialism with nationalist overtones.
 
Epicurus said:
I've taken a class literally on Lincoln's life from start to finish. We were tested on things like his children's names, the years they were born, the year he was married, his occupations, and political goings-on at the time.

I've taken 2 other upper level histories that were focused on the Civil War and the period leading up to it.

That's why I don't join in the Civil War discussions with you, Dixie, and ThreeDee.

You all say dumb shit like that and it would be too much to correct. :)
Click to expand...

I don't join the civil war discussion either, it's too much goddamn work.

Why did you take a class on Lincolns life? Are you minoring in history?
 
People who seem to harbor an unusually deep hatred for Lincoln probably did one of two things:

1) Read Thomas DiLorenzo's work The Real Lincoln

or

2) Were influenced by someone who read said work.

DiLorenzo is a great author, and I absolutely loved "How Capitalism Saved America", but the man knows fuck-all about Lincoln and is obsessed with smearing his legacy. He lets his ideology completely override any scholarly instincts he might have.
 
Lincoln got what he had coming. Now I am by no means condoning what happened, but when you play with fire, you're going to get burned.
 
Epicurus said:
People who seem to harbor an unusually deep hatred for Lincoln probably did one of two things:

1) Read Thomas DiLorenzo's work The Real Lincoln

or

2) Were influenced by someone who read said work.

DiLorenzo is a great author, and I absolutely loved "How Capitalism Saved America", but the man knows fuck-all about Lincoln and is obsessed with smearing his legacy. He lets his ideology completely override any scholarly instincts he might have.
Click to expand...

I know he said that Lincoln tried to imprison the chief justice, whenever there's no real evidence for that.
 
DiLorenzo has some deep deep feelings for the Confederacy that comes out in his writings.

He is to this day a member of the League of the South. Take a minute and read about them and you will understand why DiLorenzo's views on the Civil War are best ignored.
 
Thor said:
Lincoln got what he had coming. Now I am by no means condoning what happened, but when you play with fire, you're going to get burned.
Click to expand...
The only people who had anything "coming" were the Confederate leaders, generals such as Lee and Jackson, the residents of Atlanta (they were in the way of Sherman's stroll to the sea), and slaveholders...
 
Epicurus said:
I've taken a class literally on Lincoln's life from start to finish. We were tested on things like his children's names, the years they were born, the year he was married, his occupations, and political goings-on at the time.

I've taken 2 other upper level histories that were focused on the Civil War and the period leading up to it.

That's why I don't join in the Civil War discussions with you, Dixie, and ThreeDee.

You all say dumb shit like that and it would be too much to correct. :)
Click to expand...
Hey, I at least know my Whig-Dem political history, even if I haven't studied Lincoln much. I'm also not a retard who attacks Lincoln like Brent does just because I'm bitter the South lost (I revel in the Northern victory, and am a retard that is most unlike Brent). I am conflicted between my wish to have seen the South leave the union (and perhaps stay out forever after) and the obvious good in seeing Emancipation happen as a result of the war...

Oh yeah, I also graduated summa cum laude in history back in May...
 
Threedee said:
The only people who had anything "coming" were the Confederate leaders, generals such as Lee and Jackson, the residents of Atlanta (they were in the way of Sherman's stroll to the sea), and slaveholders...
Click to expand...

Bullshit. You're buying into their propaganda hook, line and sinker. :(

Lincoln was a power-hungry fascist dictator who raped the Constitution in every orifice. The Civil War had nothing to do with "slavery" - it was a war of States' rights vs. absolute Federal power. Lincoln, being the clever bastard he was, injected the slavery issue to morally justify the war. But it was an immoral war from the beginning. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed for NO REASON. Lincoln was a lunatic, a tyrant, and an immoral man.

I have great respect for the generals and leaders (except Lincoln) on both sides. They were all great Americans who were simply doing their duty, and doing what they felt was the right thing. Unfortunately, over half a million people died without cause in a war that was completely unnecessary. Doesn't that sadden you in the least?
 
Thor said:
Bullshit. You're buying into their propaganda hook, line and sinker. :(

Lincoln was a power-hungry fascist dictator who raped the Constitution in every orifice. The Civil War had nothing to do with "slavery" - it was a war of States' rights vs. absolute Federal power. Lincoln, being the clever bastard he was, injected the slavery issue to morally justify the war. But it was an immoral war from the beginning. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed for NO REASON. Lincoln was a lunatic, a tyrant, and an immoral man.

I have great respect for the generals and leaders (except Lincoln) on both sides. They were all great Americans who were simply doing their duty, and doing what they felt was the right thing. Unfortunately, over half a million people died without cause in a war that was completely unnecessary. Doesn't that sadden you in the least?
Click to expand...
Oh yes, Lincoln's "Spot Resolution" and general opposition to the Mexican War were very fascist. The guy had a plan for America quite unlike what unfolded when the losers took their ball and left.

Also, read every one of the secession documents. Except for SC, they explicitly state slavery as a primary cause. I tend to lean towards supporting Lincoln's prosecution of the war out of my perverse desire to see evil people suffor for their sins, but overall it would have been nice if he had let the South walk. The post-Reconstruction era is proof that Lincoln created no such evil federal government, though like earlier presidents of the century, he did help pave the road for the progressive era which did see a huge growth in federal power (principally Wilson).

I also tend not to respect my enemies. The Nazis, Soviets, Wahabbists, etc. can all go to hell, and the same would hold true if I were fighting the Confederacy...
 
Threedee said:
Oh yes, Lincoln's "Spot Resolution" and general opposition to the Mexican War were very fascist. The guy had a plan for America quite unlike what unfolded when the losers took their ball and left.

Also, read every one of the secession documents. Except for SC, they explicitly state slavery as a primary cause. I tend to lean towards supporting Lincoln's prosecution of the war out of my perverse desire to see evil people suffor for their sins, but overall it would have been nice if he had let the South walk. The post-Reconstruction era is proof that Lincoln created no such evil federal government, though like earlier presidents of the century, he did help pave the road for the progressive era which did see a huge growth in federal power (principally Wilson).

I also tend not to respect my enemies. The Nazis, Soviets, Wahabbists, etc. can all go to hell, and the same would hold true if I were fighting the Confederacy...
Click to expand...


Why do you continue to post the same points we've already discussed? How many times does it have to be proven to you, that the war was not fought over the issue of slavery? Lincoln didn't want to just free the slaves, he wanted to 'deport' the slaves. The US is responsible for the legalization of slavery, as well as the US Courts who defined slaves as property and not humans. Because the majority of these slaves lived in the geographic region most conducive to agriculture, is not the fault of the Southerners. They were just people obeying the laws set by the US, and minding their own business.

The Federalists wanted to mandate the rights of states to oversee their own affairs, and that was a Constitutional dilemma, because it violated the very structure of power granted in the Constitution to the Federal government. There was also the issue of tariffs imposed on southern agriculture, which directly benefited northern industry, and the continued complacency of the Federal government to allow this and condone it, to the detriment of southern economies. The grevences of the South had grown to a boiling point by the time Lincoln was elected, and his presidency was seen as the writing on the wall for the future of the south, because he advocated Federalist policy.

Slavery was indeed involved, but it was not why the war was fought, despite the modern interpretations of the succession documents. Slavery was not prevalent simply because we just didn't have laws against it. It had been established in this country from it's inception, and not only condoned, but sanctioned by the government and courts as a legitimate means of labor for agricultural use. This was not the fault of Southern plantation owners, they were simply following the laws and guidelines set down by the government.

You act as if, Slavery was this big Liberal Civil Rights issue of the time, and it wasn't. It was a legal practice and had been for years, and very few people of the time, thought slaves could be assimilated into a white society, much less, having that objective or the objective of true "freedom" for slaves. Most abolitionists favored a plan to move the slaves to Central America or back to Africa. No one was out to "abolish" slavery, they just didn't want to see it.
 
Dixie said:
Why do you continue to post the same points we've already discussed? How many times does it have to be proven to you, that the war was not fought over the issue of slavery? Lincoln didn't want to just free the slaves, he wanted to 'deport' the slaves. The US is responsible for the legalization of slavery, as well as the US Courts who defined slaves as property and not humans. Because the majority of these slaves lived in the geographic region most conducive to agriculture, is not the fault of the Southerners. They were just people obeying the laws set by the US, and minding their own business.

The Federalists wanted to mandate the rights of states to oversee their own affairs, and that was a Constitutional dilemma, because it violated the very structure of power granted in the Constitution to the Federal government. There was also the issue of tariffs imposed on southern agriculture, which directly benefited northern industry, and the continued complacency of the Federal government to allow this and condone it, to the detriment of southern economies. The grevences of the South had grown to a boiling point by the time Lincoln was elected, and his presidency was seen as the writing on the wall for the future of the south, because he advocated Federalist policy.

Slavery was indeed involved, but it was not why the war was fought, despite the modern interpretations of the succession documents. Slavery was not prevalent simply because we just didn't have laws against it. It had been established in this country from it's inception, and not only condoned, but sanctioned by the government and courts as a legitimate means of labor for agricultural use. This was not the fault of Southern plantation owners, they were simply following the laws and guidelines set down by the government.

You act as if, Slavery was this big Liberal Civil Rights issue of the time, and it wasn't. It was a legal practice and had been for years, and very few people of the time, thought slaves could be assimilated into a white society, much less, having that objective or the objective of true "freedom" for slaves. Most abolitionists favored a plan to move the slaves to Central America or back to Africa. No one was out to "abolish" slavery, they just didn't want to see it.
Click to expand...
You're so mentally fucked. You say it's not about slavery then proceed to write about how it was about slavery. And abolitionists DID want it abolished, actually, many of them. that's why they were called abolitionists.
 
Dixie said:
Why do you continue to post the same points we've already discussed? How many times does it have to be proven to you, that the war was not fought over the issue of slavery? Lincoln didn't want to just free the slaves, he wanted to 'deport' the slaves. The US is responsible for the legalization of slavery, as well as the US Courts who defined slaves as property and not humans. Because the majority of these slaves lived in the geographic region most conducive to agriculture, is not the fault of the Southerners. They were just people obeying the laws set by the US, and minding their own business.

The Federalists wanted to mandate the rights of states to oversee their own affairs, and that was a Constitutional dilemma, because it violated the very structure of power granted in the Constitution to the Federal government. There was also the issue of tariffs imposed on southern agriculture, which directly benefited northern industry, and the continued complacency of the Federal government to allow this and condone it, to the detriment of southern economies. The grevences of the South had grown to a boiling point by the time Lincoln was elected, and his presidency was seen as the writing on the wall for the future of the south, because he advocated Federalist policy.

Slavery was indeed involved, but it was not why the war was fought, despite the modern interpretations of the succession documents. Slavery was not prevalent simply because we just didn't have laws against it. It had been established in this country from it's inception, and not only condoned, but sanctioned by the government and courts as a legitimate means of labor for agricultural use. This was not the fault of Southern plantation owners, they were simply following the laws and guidelines set down by the government.

You act as if, Slavery was this big Liberal Civil Rights issue of the time, and it wasn't. It was a legal practice and had been for years, and very few people of the time, thought slaves could be assimilated into a white society, much less, having that objective or the objective of true "freedom" for slaves. Most abolitionists favored a plan to move the slaves to Central America or back to Africa. No one was out to "abolish" slavery, they just didn't want to see it.
Click to expand...
Abolition was not a liberal issue - the liberals supported it as a measure of "freedom." Religious types influenced by the Second Great Awakening and capitalists were the principal proponents. You also cannot explain away the fact that all except SC stated that secession was about slavery.

When discussing new legislation, one assumes that it is sometimes proposed to deal with grave sin. The South hid behind the Fugitive Slave Act and Dred Scot (as well as a pretense that the Constitution protected slavery), but that doesn't make their actions morally right. Hence, they got war, because they refused to except reform.
 
It just occurred to me that the author of this thread is the same person who called Iraq "the greatest military achievement of our generation!"
 
Onceler said:
It just occurred to me that the author of this thread is the same person who called Iraq "the greatest military achievement of our generation!"
Click to expand...

LOL. Now you’ve got it! Palin is going in the same direction – down.

I predict that this thread will live in infamy.
 
One might think that because I am a consertative type libertarian, that regan was a big hero to me. He was a good consertative with core principals, but because he helped the rich get richer directly, he was just part of the machine to me. Now, back in those days, we did not have irresponsible global trade like we do today. Companies grew--hoired employees for good wages, and the economy boomed for over a decade because of it. If Regan did what he did today, the companies would just jusp ship to China even faster than they do today. Palin is going to have to be better then Regan IMO (and she may be--time will tell). Coporate tax cuts acorss the board (I can incorporate out of my home business--and is a McCain proposal). Smaller government and a effort to eliminate income tax, and working on a environment that will attract world business, instead of repelling our home based companies, will do the trick again--just like it did before. We would once again, be the land of oppertunity for all to come and live to use your abilities to better this great nation.---Not a nation of low paid employees that world forces want us to be.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top