Originally Posted by takascar2

So the ATF wanting to be able to trace the weapons that go to Mexican drug lords is bad? Why is it wrong for the ATF to be able to stop
this kind of gun-running. That infringes on NO ONES 2nd Amendment right.

You didn't provide any evidence to the contrary, just invective and insults.

His record on race is one of reconciliation. See his speech on race: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0...h_n_92077.html

wow, he gave a speech.....



The difference is that it is a factual statement that this is what would happen if Ryan's plan was implemented. Giving seniors coupons for insurance that would cost many times more than the face value of coupons is effectivly destroying Medicare and 70+ percent of the people
are opposed to it.



That's a far cry from calling the President a Socialist who hates America and will take your guns away (both false).

The truth of the statements comes into play somewhere here. Telling the truth and being factual is not fear-mongering

You should start making some true statements then....

If you'd bothered reading the story, the reason they were allowing the guns to go so they could use that to bolster thier case that more restrictions were required on firearms. People died because of this and its being covered up by Eric Holder. Obama is no friend to the 2nd Amendment. He is concealing his opposition to gun rights until after re-election when he'll be more free to go after our rights..

" According to a related article on NPR.org, U.S. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) said, “I have spoken to the president. He is with me on [gun control], and it's just going to be when that opportunity comes forward that we're going to be able to go forward.”

full article here http://northernohiolocalpolitics.blo...n-waiting.html

As far as providing evidence that the rich arent plotting against the middle class...I dont have to. You are the one making the crazy conspiracy charges....Can you provide proof that the rich are secretly plotting to destroy the middle class? Nothing but fear mongering and hyperbole

Originally Posted by Weave

].... Obama is no friend to the 2nd Amendment. He is concealing his opposition to gun rights until after re-election when he'll be more free to go after our rights..

Oh crap, are you idiots going to start that bullshit up again? Last time, you bidded up ammo to 3-4x and that just wasn't in the Northeast; prices got jacked-up in Idaho where my brother and I do our annual hunting. Prices are just now getting back to reasonable.

Don't you dudes have enough issues with Obama so you don't have to shoot yourselves in the foot again on this? Or do you own a gun shop or lots of shares in Remington or something?

Please, just stop or I'm going to arrange for you to get invited on a hunt with Dick Cheney.... and, I'll provide him all the beer he can 'handle.'

Originally Posted by scotths

This is somewhat confusing to me. I didn't support Obama's election because of a "vague hope and change" mantra, I supported him in part due to a list of specific policy ideas he published on his website and has largely adhered to since his election. These include ending the Iraq was (but in a careful way and not before it was possible to do so carefully), increasing troops in Afghanistan, capturing or killing Bin Laden (despite possible opposition from Pakistan), putting in place a healthcare plan that included an exchange of private insurance companies with an elimination of the pre-existing condition problem (the mandate and dropping of the public option was added later at the insistence of congress) and so on. I also supported him due to his promise and record of compromise (see IL police interrogation law) and belief in selecting competent people for key positions (ie. Fema leaders who actually are among the top in the country in disaster response and mitigation, an energy secretary with a PhD in physics and actual experience in the field).

Perhaps some were caught up in the energy of his campaign, but many voted for him on policy and competence as well.

Also, many of these policies enjoy broad support among the American people when polled on these specific questions. Positions held by many of the current crop of Republicans often do not. Eliminate Medicare as we know it, roll back don't ask don't tell, undo the income tax amendment, further reduce taxes on the wealthiest Americans, eliminate unemployment insurance... These are not policies which enjoy broad support among many!

Just be very watchful with what some might deem a shell game. Both sides of the aisle have major problems. Our not owning the dysfunctions and problems with ours, is a disaster waiting to happen.

While I will vote for Obama next fall, mostly out of having no other option, I still plan to hold him accountable for his right leaning policies.

This is an example of our need to not take our eye off the ball:

Pentagon Plan: More Drones, Increased Presence in Asia

US stoking fears for public to support "the next wild burgeoning arms race in the Pacific."

Alice Slater, the New York Director of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and member of the coordinating committee of Abolition 2000, a disarmament coalition, stated today:

On a recent trip to Australia, Obama opened a new military base there that will grow to 2,500 troops and promised that ‘we will allocate the resources necessary to maintain our strong military presence in this region.’ A Pentagon report warned Congress that China was increasing its naval power and investing in high-tech weaponry to extend its reach in the Pacific and beyond. What did we expect? And now having provoked China to beef up its military assets the warmongers in the U.S. can frighten the public into supporting the next wild burgeoning arms race in the Pacific and what appears to be the threat of endless war.

The strategy outlined also entails an increase in the use of drones. “This ‘slimmed down’ plan continues the trend to rely increasingly on fighting the two wars with technology (drones) and ‘precision’ strategic bombing," stated Beau Grosscup, professor of international relations at California State University in Chico.
Slater also stated:

It seems that we are moving to a more mechanized war-fighting posture cutting out military forces below the previously planned cuts from 570,000 to 520,000 to an Army of 490,000 troops. However we will be increasing our reliance on drone attacks, that have now been used by Obama in several countries — Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/01/05-6

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I think the people that hate Obama hate him because he's exactly their image of what is wrong with the Democratic Party: trained in elite institutions, well-spoken, liberal, and half black. Hillary Clinton would draw the same hatred and perhaps even more from being a liberal woman. (She did, in fact, as first lady.) John Kerry aroused similar hatred, all the more so because he was a genuine war hero. Racism is just one element in this and I doubt it's the most important. A white former Harvard Law Review editor and community organizer with the same views would be treated roughly the same way by the right. The situation with Bush was parallel: liberals hated and feared him for his views but also because he looked like a redneck in elitist wasp clothing. The division between these two sides, built up mainly by conservative talk radio and Fox, is broad and deep and it would persist if Obama disappeared from the scene tomorrow.

The Republican Congressman's remark is parallel to Senator Tom Coburn's statement that Obama believes in entitlement programs because he's benefited from them as a black man. A totally false statement--he may have benfitted somewhat from affirmative action but his family was neither poor nor black.

Coburn is totally wrong on this. However, in my opinion , the number of people who disagree with Obama on policy greatly exceeeds the number who 'hate' Obama. I think that the term 'hate' is much overused on both( all) sides).

Originally Posted by playwrite

Okay, I'll bite.

Yes politics is not a science and economics is not a precise science so there is some wiggle room there for politicians (and their supporters) to suggest that, in regard to the truth ,one economic theory is just as good as the next and an ideology build upon one or the other is just some personal choice perhaps based on whether one is truly virtuous or not... or some other rationality.

However, there are facts that are, well, facts. And if the facts fit one theory much more so than another, well, maybe that should tell you something. And, if the ideology that is based on a fact-less theory are highly damaging to a vast array of people, then those spouting the fact-less theory and ideology should be subjected to as much of an argumentative pounding as needed - the objective not necessarily being to get the fact-less megaphones to shut up but to open the eyes of others that the only value of these fact-less megaphones is silly-ass entertainment somewhat along the lines of the Three Stooges.

Let me choose a couple of facts that most folks on all sides of the political spectrum seem mostly incapable of grasping -

Our federal government's spending is not constrained by its taxing revenue nor by its borrowing capacity. The only thing that constrains federal spending is that when combined with private sector spending, total demand will outstrip the economy's ability to supply and sustained generalized increases in the prices of goods and services will then rise (i.e. inflation) at rates harmful to economic activity.

Further, as indicated by this chart -



- the fact is that there has been no correlation between such inflation and federal budget deficits for at least the last 82 years.

With those facts in mind, please explain how your personal belief that "Keynesian economic theory is shit" is derived. And if you can't, please explain how not only you, but a host of 'real economists' and clueless politicos that agree with you shouldn't be subjected to repeated deriding poundings until we all get a good laugh out of it.

Milton Friedman: That's all I'll say towards the "challenge" given here. Not only was the man a brilliant economist but he was one of the most intelligent minds this nation has ever seen. I firmly believe in and follow his economic ideologies. Where Reagan made his mistake was not in following a closer examination and following of his policies. I believe that Friedman's economic theories are sound and if properly followed and administered are accurate. Do I expect you or others on the left to agree with me? Absolutely not. Do I believe Friedman speaks ex cathedra? Of course not. Only il papa does that, and Joe Ratzinger, even though a brilliant apologist and properly the most brilliant apologist since Giovanni Montini, is certainly not an economist.

We've never attempted to properly follow monetarism in this nation as outlined by Friedman - but if we did I would be a welcome change from flawed and failed Keynesian economic ideology. A good first step would be in a complete re-haul of the Federal Reserve.

Then again, I'm a paleoconservative, I don't expect others to accept my thoughts as being exact or precise - nor do I tolerate the nonsense of others stating that leftist ideology is somehow "superior" to other economic models (i.e. Keynesianism) as I simply disagree with this assessment - I merely disagree is all.

j.p.

Originally Posted by JDFP

Fascinating analysis. With the left going increasingly to the left with considering anyone with dissenting opinions to be idiots, uneducated, or just people who "don't know what's best for them" I'm interested in hearing how you think that will alienate more and more people who will increasingly go further to the right in clear frustration, and direct response, with the ever growing liberal mentality that most of us (i.e. those of us who are non-elitists) just don't know what we should think and so should have that thinking stripped from us by people who clearly know better than the rest of us.

j.p.

1. People who believe things demonstrably false (like creationism, that President Obama isn't an American, or for that matter that Dwight Eisenhower was a commie) deserve ridicule. You ought to have seen how I dealt with a Holocaust denier. He was all for the Palestinian struggle against Israel, but if Palestinians wanted to live in France... how terrible! I went after him with the argument that if one could deny the Holocaust one could as well deny such horrors as Stalin's death toll and even the Atlantic slave trade.

Belief in absurdity is possible at every level of intelligence (think of Josef Goebbels and Ted "Unabom" Kaczynski); their problems weren't a lack of mental power. Against some brilliant fellow who says rubbish the right response is to expose the inherent contradictions. That is how one dissects such nonsense as The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion -- the behavior that it advocates violates Jewish law, it is supposedly Jewish yet it has plenty of references (like to a pagan Hindu god Shiva) alien to contemporary Jews, that it promotes contradictory behavior (be true to Judaism, but be sure to infiltrate Christian churches; promote lewdness and lasciviousness but don't participate in it); above all, show that this supposedly innovative plot is in fact a plagiarism.

To be sure, all truly-new ideas (like evolution, relativity, and continental drift in their times) are contrary to established wisdom. Hypotheses can be tested and be proved (like evolution, relativity, and continental drift) or be rejected (like Marxism and fascism).

2. Uneducated? Willful ignorance is more of the problem. People of limited formal education (well, aren't we all?) might lack access to peer-reviewed journals, but they can certainly use the conventions of logic and mainstream knowledge to judge claims for truth and falsehood. People need to know the significance of words and images and recognize mainstream attitudes (not that the latter cannot change).

We liberals have been gaining on 'race' and homosexuality. We don't have a problem with the paternal ancestry of the President when other things matter far more. While we become more tolerant of consensual sex between adults of the same gender we also get less tolerant of spouse abuse and child abuse.

3. We have extensive propaganda intended to suggest that what is best for economic elites but horrible to the rest of humanity is in fact good for humanity as a whole. Maybe those elites believe that themselves; big planters of the old South may have believed themselves benefactors to their slaves. PR firms and stooge politicians may believe what they are told. My BA degree is in economics, and I can use the concept of "marginal utility of income" to suggest that a reduction of $1000 in income to marginal workers hurts such people far more than the $1000 gain that a shareholder or executive gets from squeezing the working poor. For some people, $1000 is food off the table, a chill in the household air, deferral of dental work, no books for the kids to read; for others, the $100K squeezed out of 100 working-poor people is perhaps $28K in federal taxes and $72K spent on luxuries -- or maybe wasted on gambling, whores, or cocaine.

Advertising, political campaigns, and PR work. But for how long? Raw deals and pathological politics eventually show themselves for what they are.

4. Right-wingers love to call us liberals "elitists". Most of us are better described as humanists. Let's remember that the erosion of feudal "rights" that relied upon the subjection of peasants was itself a liberal concept -- as was the denial of the 'Divine Right of Kings'. The Bill of Rights and the Declaration of the Rights of Man are early statements of liberal ideals. Abolition of slavery was a liberal concept. So were workers' rights, women's rights, child rights, universal education, the vote for all, national self-determination, academic freedom, ethnic equity, and now homosexual rights. If there is any arrow of history it has generally been toward liberalism.

Blatant rejections of liberalism include Marxism-Leninism and its variants, fascism, Nazism, Ku Kluxism, Apartheid, Ba'athism, military dictatorship, and various forms of theocracy -- all of which destroy the human rights that liberalism made possible. Marxism offered an economic ideal as a substitute for liberalism and failed because bureaucratic elites responsible to nobody arrogated all power for themselves and smashed the checks and balances necessary for a government responsible to the People. So long as workers have rights on the job and capitalism implies competitive markets for goods and labor, Marxist socialism (government ownership and operation of productive enterprise) is unnecessary. Fascists and Nazis in contrast to Marxists endorse class privilege but without economic competition for goods or labor; under both workers have responsibilities to the Master Class who has no responsibility to the economic elites... and as under Marxism-Leninism the usual 'bourgeois' checks and balances against bureaucratic power and individual despotism no longer exist. Think of serfdom for the misery that it implied: serfs on the manor had no rights but many responsibilities to the Lord who dominated the estate. Under Nazism and fascism the technology may be more advanced but the relationship of worker to industrial magnate is much like that of serf to Lord of the Manor. The others? All that I need say as that they repudiate liberalism through force and repression.

5. What is the American Hard Right doing for the little guy, anyway? Is it making life easier by taking away choices? Is its promotion of superstition likely to make people more capable of making ethical choices and enhancing their skills? Is its militarism likely to make a safer world -- or create new and dangerous enemies? Is its exaggerated nationalism something that can play in Pretoria?

We shall see whether the Republican gains of 2010 are an indelible wave of the future or a Pyrrhic victory in ten months. So far I see a Pyrrhic victory.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

I was not surprised. But then again the town I grew up in had the Confederate flag waving on the main street for years and years, and we are well ABOVE the Mason-Dixon line.

~Chas'88

But you ARE part of Greater Appalachia, hence those treasonous flags.

Thank goodness I don't live there, this Yankee would go ballistic every time I see that evil flag.

Originally Posted by JDFP

Milton Friedman: That's all I'll say towards the "challenge" given here. Not only was the man a brilliant economist but he was one of the most intelligent minds this nation has ever seen. I firmly believe in and follow his economic ideologies. Where Reagan made his mistake was not in following a closer examination and following of his policies. I believe that Friedman's economic theories are sound and if properly followed and administered are accurate. Do I expect you or others on the left to agree with me? Absolutely not. Do I believe Friedman speaks ex cathedra? Of course not. Only il papa does that, and Joe Ratzinger, even though a brilliant apologist and properly the most brilliant apologist since Giovanni Montini, is certainly not an economist.

We've never attempted to properly follow monetarism in this nation as outlined by Friedman - but if we did I would be a welcome change from flawed and failed Keynesian economic ideology. A good first step would be in a complete re-haul of the Federal Reserve.

Then again, I'm a paleoconservative, I don't expect others to accept my thoughts as being exact or precise - nor do I tolerate the nonsense of others stating that leftist ideology is somehow "superior" to other economic models (i.e. Keynesianism) as I simply disagree with this assessment - I merely disagree is all.

j.p.

Milton Friedman was a ***hole who deserves to burn in Hell for all eternity for his role as part of the Chicago Boys who assisted Augusto Pinochet after he overthrew the elected Socialist leader of Chile. He was a vile RW hack whose only good idea was a negative income tax for the poor.

Originally Posted by Odin

But you ARE part of Greater Appalachia, hence those treasonous flags.

Thank goodness I don't live there, this Yankee would go ballistic every time I see that evil flag.

That's very true, I'm technically in the foothills to the Appalachians--and the Appalachian Trail is only an hour's drive away.

You needn't worry, they've replaced them with Rattlesnake flags.

~Chas'88

I'm only about 20 mins from the AT myself. I do like the Gadsden, but am wary to show it off in this era.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

they've replaced them with Rattlesnake flags. [~Chas'88

Which, coincidentally, were a product of Appalachia during the Revolutionary Way.

"Don't Tread On Me" describes Greater Appalachian culture very well.

Originally Posted by Odin

Which, coincidentally, were a product of Appalachia during the Revolutionary Way.

"Don't Tread On Me" describes Greater Appalachian culture very well.

Which actually explains my liking to it, as I do have some Scot-Irish heritage. Too bad the TP decided to appropriate it.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

1. People who believe things demonstrably false (like creationism, that President Obama isn't an American, or for that matter that Dwight Eisenhower was a commie) deserve ridicule. You ought to have seen how I dealt with a Holocaust denier. He was all for the Palestinian struggle against Israel, but if Palestinians wanted to live in France... how terrible! I went after him with the argument that if one could deny the Holocaust one could as well deny such horrors as Stalin's death toll and even the Atlantic slave trade.

I think one should be cautious in labeling one as a "Holocaust denier" for having a valid discussion regarding the number of individuals executed during the Holocaust. Very few people (and I'd even question David Irving to an extent on this, but that's another discussion for another day) question the atrocities of the Nazi regime or the horrors perpetrated by them. However, I think it's a valid discussion in discussing models by which one can more accurately calculate the causation of horror that not only the Nazi regime but also other totalitarian regimes (i.e. the Holodomor perpetrated by Stalin and his cronies) in actuality caused. I think it's important to point out that denying that 11 million people were killed during the Holocaust or X # of people killed during the Holodomor is certainly not the same as denying the very factual actuality of the Holocaust itself. Unless you live in Germany - then if you express a contrary opinion in any way you're sent to prison and/or censured.

As far as Creationism - I've never understood why there has always been such an issue between the religious and scientists regarding this issue. Evolution is not a contradiction to Genesis except in the most literal reading (see: Southern Baptist, etc.) of Scripture. I have no issue with accepting evolution by the mode in which God proceeded within His creation.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Belief in absurdity is possible at every level of intelligence (think of Josef Goebbels and Ted "Unabom" Kaczynski); their problems weren't a lack of mental power. Against some brilliant fellow who says rubbish the right response is to expose the inherent contradictions. That is how one dissects such nonsense as The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion -- the behavior that it advocates violates Jewish law, it is supposedly Jewish yet it has plenty of references (like to a pagan Hindu god Shiva) alien to contemporary Jews, that it promotes contradictory behavior (be true to Judaism, but be sure to infiltrate Christian churches; promote lewdness and lasciviousness but don't participate in it); above all, show that this supposedly innovative plot is in fact a plagiarism.

No argument from me. Be wary of those who know just enough to cause trouble.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

To be sure, all truly-new ideas (like evolution, relativity, and continental drift in their times) are contrary to established wisdom. Hypotheses can be tested and be proved (like evolution, relativity, and continental drift) or be rejected (like Marxism and fascism).


2. Uneducated? Willful ignorance is more of the problem. People of limited formal education (well, aren't we all?) might lack access to peer-reviewed journals, but they can certainly use the conventions of logic and mainstream knowledge to judge claims for truth and falsehood. People need to know the significance of words and images and recognize mainstream attitudes (not that the latter cannot change).

Mainstream attitudes is a fickle matter and say it shouldn't be considered (outside of the realm of common sense) other than from a Machiavellian perspective. An individual should never limit his/her thoughts merely from the "common perspective and acceptance" of the day.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

We liberals have been gaining on 'race' and homosexuality. We don't have a problem with the paternal ancestry of the President when other things matter far more. While we become more tolerant of consensual sex between adults of the same gender we also get less tolerant of spouse abuse and child abuse.

I'm firmly against state sanctioned homosexual marriage. I'm also firmly against state sanctioned heterosexual marriage as well. The entire enterprise of marriage becoming a "state matter" in response to taxation purposes seems rather sickening to me, to be honest. The separation of church and state is to protect the churches from the persecution of state-mandated ideology. Thus, the matter of the Rite of Holy Matrimony within Catholicism and other religious institutions should be kept thus - a religious matter. The federal government nor the state government should dictate the terminology or impetus of "marriage" - this can be done through civil recognition just as well as "marriage" as decreed by the state and it removes the issue of religious qualms by doing so.

I am certainly no neo-con. Overall, we seem to agree on many more principles than initially when I labeled you as an elitist for your presentation of material. I still believe you've been shaped by an elitist mentality - but I was wrong, and rightfully admit, I was wrong in labeling you as one. And for that - I apologize.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

3. We have extensive propaganda intended to suggest that what is best for economic elites but horrible to the rest of humanity is in fact good for humanity as a whole. Maybe those elites believe that themselves; big planters of the old South may have believed themselves benefactors to their slaves. PR firms and stooge politicians may believe what they are told. My BA degree is in economics, and I can use the concept of "marginal utility of income" to suggest that a reduction of $1000 in income to marginal workers hurts such people far more than the $1000 gain that a shareholder or executive gets from squeezing the working poor. For some people, $1000 is food off the table, a chill in the household air, deferral of dental work, no books for the kids to read; for others, the $100K squeezed out of 100 working-poor people is perhaps $28K in federal taxes and $72K spent on luxuries -- or maybe wasted on gambling, whores, or cocaine.

So, if someone has worked hard to become what is considered wealthy in this nation we automatically deduce said individual has money and thus conclude he/she spends this income on whores, gambling, cocaine, and other vices? This is rather presumptuous and I think an insult to many who have done well through dedication and commitment to their careers. It also says something about the thought-process many who feel this way have - and indeed seems to have a bit of a condescending glib disregard for those who are wealthy as if it's an insult to workers for having the audacity to do well. The wealthy should not be punished for the very fact of having attained wealth. Certainly, an argument could be made for how some have become wealthy - but this is more of a matter of the moral character of the nation as a whole and is a completely different discussion.

If we strip away all facets of meritocracy through, what I consider, to be punitive taxation we strip away incentive in a society. Why the hell should I work my ass off just to end up in a different tax bracket where I'll actually end up paying more of my overall income earned as opposed to staying in a specific position without really trying? Human nature should not be denied.

I believe all Americans should be equally taxed when it comes to the issue of income. The concept of "You do better in making more money so you should have to pay more in taxes for others!" seems plainly and bruntly to be a disgusting insult to me. Progressive taxation is a disturbing principle to me. As far as the issue of other forms of taxation - that's a different matter for a different discussion.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Advertising, political campaigns, and PR work. But for how long? Raw deals and pathological politics eventually show themselves for what they are.

4. Right-wingers love to call us liberals "elitists". Most of us are better described as humanists. Let's remember that the erosion of feudal "rights" that relied upon the subjection of peasants was itself a liberal concept -- as was the denial of the 'Divine Right of Kings'. The Bill of Rights and the Declaration of the Rights of Man are early statements of Liberal ideals. Abolition of slavery was a liberal concept. So were workers' rights, women's rights, child rights, universal education, the vote for all, national self-determination, academic freedom, ethnic equity, and now homosexual rights. If there is any arrow of history it has generally been toward Liberalism.

I made a few corrections for you there I think are more accurate. It doesn't detract from your original message which is above this post. Honestly, my beer is getting warm and I'm getting a bit tired in typing but will certainly come back to more of this later.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Blatant rejections of Liberalism include Marxism-Leninism and its variants, fascism, Nazism, Ku Kluxism, Apartheid, Ba'athism, military dictatorship, and various forms of theocracy -- all of which destroy the human rights that Liberalism made possible. Marxism offered an economic ideal as a substitute for liberalism and failed because bureaucratic elites responsible to nobody arrogated all power for themselves and smashed the checks and balances necessary for a government responsible to the People. So long as workers have rights on the job and capitalism implies competitive markets for goods and labor, Marxist socialism (government ownership and operation of productive enterprise) is unnecessary. Fascists and Nazis in contrast to Marxists endorse class privilege but without economic competition for goods or labor; under both workers have responsibilities to the Master Class who has no responsibility to the economic elites... and as under Marxism-Leninism the usual 'bourgeois' checks and balances against bureaucratic power and individual despotism no longer exist. Think of serfdom for the misery that it implied: serfs on the manor had no rights but many responsibilities to the Lord who dominated the estate. Under Nazism and fascism the technology may be more advanced but the relationship of worker to industrial magnate is much like that of serf to Lord of the Manor. The others? All that I need say as that they repudiate Liberalism through force and repression.

Let us not mince Liberalism with leftist "liberal" ideology. They are not one and the same.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

5. What is the American Hard Right doing for the little guy, anyway? Is it making life easier by taking away choices? Is its promotion of superstition likely to make people more capable of making ethical choices and enhancing their skills? Is its militarism likely to make a safer world -- or create new and dangerous enemies? Is its exaggerated nationalism something that can play in Pretoria?

We shall see whether the Republican gains of 2010 are an indelible wave of the future or a Pyrrhic victory in ten months. So far I see a Pyrrhic victory.

Oh the military certainly needs to be downsized. In fact, we need to get out of other nations in the world and bring the troops back home in literal sense as opposed to symbolic sense. Pulling out of Iraq is not enough - we have no basis in being an International Police Force throughout the world. Israel is not the 51st State. The Mossad is certainly, as it has shown time and time again, a force to be reckoned with as is the IDF. We have no right in the world in dictating ideologies to Iran or elsewhere save for defending our natural borders (including the Mexican border as well - note, this does not mean I'm advocating building a big fence).

Overall, I agree with the majority of what you've presented here with some interjections. If other folks in this nation could come together as we have here on this forum in logically and rationally discussing issues that confront us, I think we'd perhaps have a better understanding of the Crisis of Confidence (which I feel is a fitting statement for describing our current national state of affairs) in both the failed president and failed Congress we currently have. Unfortunately, too many others see fit to squabble as school children.

And again - I apologize for calling you an elitist and for having originally blocked you. While I find your tirades I generally disagree with to be inaccurate on many matters, I have removed you from my block list and hope to share in discussions with you - even if we disagree you've certainly proven yourself to be civil and intelligent. So, my hat tips to you in respect, good sir.

j.p.

Originally Posted by Odin

But you ARE part of Greater Appalachia, hence those treasonous flags.

Thank goodness I don't live there, this Yankee would go ballistic every time I see that evil flag.

I proudly have a Stainless Banner flag and ensure, just as Old Stars and Stripes, that it never touches the ground or is never disgraced. My grandparents hang their Stainless Banner flag at half-staff (as it should be in respect to the fallen American women and men who died in service to their states) on great General Lee's birthday each year in respect and honor for men and women like him who served the Commonwealth of Virginia and other fine states in this nation.

Unfortunately, some have seen fit to attribute racial matters to the Stainless Banner not benefited by ignorant and, plainly, stupid racists throughout the nation. In the same manner many other Americans have also desecrated Old Stars 'N Stripes in a similar fashion through ignorance and bigotry as well.

However, this does not take away from the valuable and important function of the Stainless Banner as being a wonderful symbol in giving honor and respect to the brave men and women who gave their lives as Americans for their states. Do I agree with the concept of slavery? Hell no. But the vast majority of those who fought for their states didn't have slaves or necessarily believe in it either - it was a matter of standing with their countrymen as Americans.

You're welcome to feel otherwise toward the matter - but the issue of racism should not enter into it other than the idiots (KKK, Neo-Nazis, etc.) who desecrate the sacrifice the flag of these brave and good Americans who gave their lives during the Civil War.

j.p.

Originally Posted by takascar2

Nonsense.



This is the biggest lie of all. Conservatives sleep well at night because they think they have the answer and don't need to think about it anymore. Liberals are always re-examining their ideas to make sure they are correct. Just look at DailyKos.com and see how many knock-down, drag-out fights they have.



The whole nation was ready for change after the repuglicans had decimated the working and middle class for the previous 30 years since Reagan. You think liberals are satisfied with Obama? Just go look at the scathing criticism that he gets at places like DailyKos.com.

Obama is a centrist and a righty on some issues, especially on national defense. This criticism of him being a "socialist" is the most preposterous thing that I have ever heard.

These terms are just codeword for n***er. That is really why most of the opponents dislike him - the hue of his skin. They think that only white males should be that office and if they had their way, Jim Crow would be enshrined in the Constitution.



They are constantly trying to fix the racist, sexist and misogynistic world that the right has been supporting for years. Sorry, but people who engage in sexual harassment should be punished as they are HARMING others. As for hate speech codes, no one has banned any kind of speech. Laws have been created to enhance penalties for people who have racist or homophobic motivations for crimes, but the concept of aggravating circumstances in penal law are centuries old.



More nonsense. Liberals are the most reasoning people of all. As I said, they are always re-assesing their beliefs and debating among each other. The smart, intelligent people are mostly liberal.

The right, on the other hand, seems to have the lion's share of the ignorant, low-information people who operate on emotional rather than reasonable motivation. They are ignorant and proud to be so, rejecting science for the opinion of their preacher, many of whom wouldn't know
the real teachings of Jesus Christ if it came up and bit them in the ass. These people have bought into a Frankenstein version of Christianity
in which the central theme of Jesus, that is, to love one another (and not just other white people) and to "do unto others...." has been replaced with a nightmare of hatred, in toleration, xenophobia and racism.

What these people really are is afraid. They are afraid because they perceive that our nation is collapsing. In a sense, they are correct, but its not because of excessive government, it is because our middle class has been betrayed and sold out by the right that pretends to be all about family values, but in reality, it is a hoax, a diversion to get the people to not notice that the corporations and their right-wing lackeys in power have been systematically destroying the underpinnings of the Great US Middle Class (tm) that flourished in the 50's and 60's.

............

That is what motivates the right-wing voters - fear.



More unmitigated b*****it. Provide proof that this was the motivation, shut up, or risk being exposed for the fool you are. Fast and Furious was a typical bureacratic screw-up, the likes of which we have seen under many administrations. Barack Obama has said, over and over again that he supports the Second Amendment.



It may be a hoax or not, I say it hasn't been proven one way or the other and BOTH sides have agendas which make their
pronouncements suspect.



No, obsessions with protecting people's rights to live whatever lifestyles they choose without being harassed for it. Also, a desire to
fight the big government policies of the right who support expansion of government intrusions into people's private lives.

This issue points out the hypocrisy of the right: They are for limited government regulations on businesses, allowing businesses to screw
over working class and poor people for the benefit of the 1% but are all for big government when it comes to intruding on bedroom issues and
the like. They are hypocrits.

Any questions?

Excellent! I have Weave on ignore. I gave the F-scale (as best I can remember it) from Theodore Adorno's The Authoritarian Personality. "F" stands for "fascism" -- and not conservative. Genuine conservatives (Bill Buckley was a prime example, as were most Republicans in the 1970s and earlier) have significant deviations from the questionable values shown in the F-Scale. They might be conventional by nature, but not as if they are scared that they will be exposed for some 'damnable' eccentricity. Conservatives might be authoritative without being authoritarian; they might be staunchly anti-crime to the extent that they would rather have a mixed-race family (the adults are straight-laced professionals) next door than a meth lab. They might call the cops on child abuse, drug trafficking, or the usual robbery/burglary/auto theft... but so would I, and I am a liberal. Without law and order all civil liberties are empty promises and prosperity that makes civility possible vanishes.

Conservatives can have great respect for scientific progress and no use for superstition. They might (as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. insisted) "judge people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin". Of course that leaves much room for harsh judgment of any evil-doer. Liberals hardly have a monopoly on rational thought, which is just as well.

The best constraint upon such a government agency as the IRS is legislative oversight. Complaints against the IRS make it sound as if the IRS were on the same level as debt-collectors for loan-sharks. For good reason we have higher taxes on the rich than on the poor -- taxing the poor is cruel and ineffective; the rich often have more at stake through the courts of law (like protection of their property rights against theft and infringement of "intellectual property"), defense (of "American interests abroad -- meaning American corporate investments), profitable dealings with the government (from water projects to government contracts), using the human capital that government expenditures (as on advanced education) made possible, and infrastructure (getting the goods to market). It's up to conservatives to find ways in which to reduce spending if they want to make taxes less onerous. War is obviously one of the greatest of all creators of national debt, so shouldn't we make it harder to go to war? Economic downturns that result from speculative bubbles imploding also bloat the national debt, so shouldn't we have laws to force caution in business dealings?

Genuine conservatives are hardly extremists. I would be far less apprehensive of the GOP if it still had people like John Warner and Bob Dole as the norm instead of the fire-breathing right-wingers who sound more like the fascists of the last Crisis than like our Founding Fathers. Conservatism is at its best a tactical retreat from liberal failures. Unfortunately the likes of Saxby Chambliss and Scott Walker mark the contemporary GOP for what it is.

... Global warming may be a real menace, but it would now seem that the hazard of reducing it to economic activity is far less than the heroic efforts to reverse it or compensate for it if it happens. Bangladesh might be one of the most unattractive countries to visit, but it is one of the countries that would be hit hardest and most catastrophically through inundation. It holds a large population. Does anyone have any idea of where its people would go?

............

I could make the case that genuine conservatives can look at the following:

1. Extrication of the US from costly and originally-unnecessary wars that have bloated budget deficits
2. Rejected the urge to have an economic boom as corrupt as the real-estate boom that imploded in the last few years
3. Whacked Osama bin Laden without killing Pakistanis or leaving a grave for him as a potential shrine
4. Saved General Motors and Chrysler
5. Promoted liberal democracy in the Muslim world
6. Greatly reduced anti-American sentiments worldwide
7. Addressed the escalating cost of American medical care (if not perfectly)
8. Put the economic screws to Iran on its nuclear program with the aid of the European Union

If Mike Huckabee, John McCain, or Mitt Romney had done even seven of these, then wouldn't he be in line (barring scandal, a military or diplomatic debacle, or a "double-dip" downturn) to be re-elected in a landslide?

Originally Posted by JDFP

I proudly have a Stainless Banner flag and ensure, just as Old Stars and Stripes, that it never touches the ground or is never disgraced. My grandparents hang their Stainless Banner flag at half-staff (as it should be in respect to the fallen American women and men who died in service to their states) on great General Lee's birthday each year in respect and honor for men and women like him who served the Commonwealth of Virginia and other fine states in this nation.

Unfortunately, some have seen fit to attribute racial matters to the Stainless Banner not benefited by ignorant and, plainly, stupid racists throughout the nation. In the same manner many other Americans have also desecrated Old Stars 'N Stripes in a similar fashion through ignorance and bigotry as well.

However, this does not take away from the valuable and important function of the Stainless Banner as being a wonderful symbol in giving honor and respect to the brave men and women who gave their lives as Americans for their states. Do I agree with the concept of slavery? Hell no. But the vast majority of those who fought for their states didn't have slaves or necessarily believe in it either - it was a matter of standing with their countrymen as Americans.

You're welcome to feel otherwise toward the matter - but the issue of racism should not enter into it other than the idiots (KKK, Neo-Nazis, etc.) who desecrate the sacrifice the flag of these brave and good Americans who gave their lives during the Civil War.

j.p.

The Confederate Battle Flag is a symbol of racism and treason, a symbol of traitors who believed that owning other human beings was a good thing. I view that flag as little different than the Nazi flag.

If it is not a symbol of racism then why do people from outside the states that were part of the Confederacy fly it?

Originally Posted by JDFP

...And isn't this the primary issue though? I can understand and appreciate what you're saying, but you're making a massive presumption/pre-supposition that what leftist ideology is Truth (as in a mathematical fact that 2+2 = 4) while the right is spewing 2+2 = 5. This is simply not the case - all either side has is theory and historical precedent to either support and/or refute said theory which can be read many ways (and the same historical records will be read differently by both side to help them in their argument the opposing side is giving a 2+2 = 5 on reality while they are giving Truth).

Let's assume that there are truths that can be found without a rigid mathematical proof (since few of those exists). I tend to lean pretty heavily on empirical data, which can be hard to isolate in a complex world, but I think we can identify a few things that have been tried and found wanting. First on the list is Quantitative Easing, which is better than nothing but decidedly inadequate. We had the opportunity to see what happens when money is pushed out through the banks. It stops right there, unless the climate is already good for lending. Of course, if it is, then QE is unneeded. If there is a liquidity issue, a simple line of credit will do.

So far, this has been tried by the Japanese and us to no great benefit. This, btw, was Milton Friedman's superior tactic to end the Great Depression. I don't see it doing better then than it has today.

A second recession resolving tenet of the conservative economic philosophy is the application of austerity. This has also been tried in several places, some with their own currency and some not. So far, the reduction of spending has lead to economic contraction in Japan (again), Ireland, England, Latvia and a whole slew of 3rd world countries under the auspices of the IMF.

I think we can rule those as 2 + 2 = 5.

Originally Posted by JDFP ...

This is one of the reasons why I intentionally point out to everyone that I am *NOT* a Republican although I lean conservative on the majority of issues (I classify myself as only a paleoconservative). The Republican party and/or right-leaning theory is not Truth and, you know what, neither is left-leaning and/or the Democrat party. Politics are not a precise science and never will be.

Here we actually agree. Politics is the art of gaining and using power. I can't say either philosophical caste in the current US political domain has anything much to show anyone.

Originally Posted by JDFP ...

Thus, yes, it is presumptuous for anyone on the left to use their interpretation of historical precedent to support their (I personally believe Keynesian economic theory is shit, personally, but that's not a Truth but merely my own theory) ideology as being, you guessed it, Truth. And it's damned condescending for others out here to be told to believe any other ideology or theory is the same as believing 2+2 = 5.

j.p.

We know without question that massive spending during WW-II lead to huge debts but a vibrant post-war economy in the US and most other nations that experienced it. I doubt that most spent by choice, so the result was a bit of a shock. There is also no doubt that the incurred debt declined in real terms as growth and mild inflation increased GNP and devalued the debt itself. This actually is basic math. You can argue that Keynes was wrong, but you'll have a hard time showing it. In fact, it follows the logic of negative feedback, which is used extensively in many fields because it demonstrably works.

Of the contending systems, neo-Keynesianism is the only one with a solid record. The "neo" part was the adoption of monetary theory during inflationary times. Again, it was shown to work in the '80s, so why deny it. In fact, when used to counter inflation it shares the same negative feedback paradigm that classical Keynes demonstrated in attacking deflation and recession.

For some people, this isn't about ideology.

Originally Posted by Odin

The Confederate Battle Flag is a symbol of racism and treason, a symbol of traitors who believed that owning other human beings was a good thing. I view that flag as little different than the Nazi flag.

If it is not a symbol of racism then why do people from outside the states that were part of the Confederacy fly it?

It has, very wrongfully, been made to represent this by ignorant bigots and assholes and racists. I do not deny this - and I completely understand your sentiments as the Stainless Banner flag has been wrongfully and ignorantly been represented as thus by many. However, I prefer to stick to original meanings and intentions.

The same could be said of Stars N' Stripes. Do you think the millions of innocents (who just want to get by day by day as most of us) living in countries throughout the world destroyed by bombs dropped by a country flying the Stars N' Stripes see this flag as a sign of integrity and a people respecting the values that the majority of us as Americans hold? Of course not. They see it as a flag of a oppressive nation killing their loved ones. However, this is certainly not the intention and meaning behind the Stars N' Stripes which has been sabotaged by both the left and right in this nation perpetrating imperial reactions in policing the rest of the world.

Likewise, the Stainless Banner is a flag intended to represent states that dared to question an over-bloated and ineffective government that gave no heed or creed to the people of their states as fellow Americans and countrymen - relegating Southerners to be "Other" as not Americans as many in government felt at the time.

I respect the Stainless Banner for its original message just as I respect Stars N' Stripes for its original message and intention - with the inherent message each flag holds as a representative of we as Americans as being (overall, I do believe, but perhaps it is just my being an optimist) truly good and wanting democracy and goodness for all throughout the world against any form of oppression. And here I pose this: You as a northerner with the hatred you feel towards how the Stainless Banner has been completely perverted and shamed by bigots and racists can hardly imagine how much more hatred I feel towards these same groups for doing the same thing towards my great-great-great grandparents and others who stood and died in places such as Gettysburg for uniting against an oppressive federal government.

To quote from Johnny Cash: "I thank God for all the freedoms we've got in this country and I cherish them. Even the rights to burn the flag. I'm proud of those rights. But I tell you what, we've also got the right to bear arms. And if you burn my flag I'll shoot you".

I couldn't agree more with his sentiments in giving respect for all Americans, especially all Americans who have given their lives, all of us as countrymen whether from the delta of the Mississippi or the hills of Virginia or the coast of Maine or the snow-covered fields of Indiana.

j.p.

Originally Posted by Odin

The Confederate Battle Flag is a symbol of racism and treason, a symbol of traitors who believed that owning other human beings was a good thing. I view that flag as little different than the Nazi flag.

If it is not a symbol of racism then why do people from outside the states that were part of the Confederacy fly it?

Odin man, sometimes I just don't understand. You are so often intelligent, why do you fall for such simplistic constructions?

One of the questions that always bedevils me, is why were most of those southern boys fighting? Even assuming they were flaming racists, why were they fighting to protect the system of slavery? I mean, it hurt the average cracker only minimally less than it hurt the slaves themselves.

Originally Posted by JDFP

Likewise, the Stainless Banner is a flag intended to represent states that dared to question an over-bloated and ineffective government that gave no heed or creed to the people of their states as fellow Americans and countrymen - relegating Southerners to be "Other" as not Americans as many in government felt at the time.

This uis false, the secession was about one thing and one thing only: Slavery. The Confederate VP admitted as such when he said that "Our government is based on the truth that the black man is not equal to the white man".

I know Southerners like to deny that the Civil War was about slavery, but that is self-serving denial, it was about slavery. When they spoke about their "rights" they meant the "right" to OWN OTHER HUMAN BEINGS.

Originally Posted by JDFP

Milton Friedman: That's all I'll say towards the "challenge" given here. Not only was the man a brilliant economist but he was one of the most intelligent minds this nation has ever seen. I firmly believe in and follow his economic ideologies. Where Reagan made his mistake was not in following a closer examination and following of his policies. I believe that Friedman's economic theories are sound and if properly followed and administered are accurate. Do I expect you or others on the left to agree with me? Absolutely not. Do I believe Friedman speaks ex cathedra? Of course not. Only il papa does that, and Joe Ratzinger, even though a brilliant apologist and properly the most brilliant apologist since Giovanni Montini, is certainly not an economist.

We've never attempted to properly follow monetarism in this nation as outlined by Friedman - but if we did I would be a welcome change from flawed and failed Keynesian economic ideology. A good first step would be in a complete re-haul of the Federal Reserve.

Then again, I'm a paleoconservative, I don't expect others to accept my thoughts as being exact or precise - nor do I tolerate the nonsense of others stating that leftist ideology is somehow "superior" to other economic models (i.e. Keynesianism) as I simply disagree with this assessment - I merely disagree is all.

j.p.

OK, but what Friedman policies do you like and why? I'll give you one I find dangerous - the idea that we should be ecstaic that foreigners will give us all sorts of things in exchange for our green paper. You can't argue that we ignored that; we followed that dictum to the letter. Now we find ourselves unable to supply most goods to to each other, including needs such as clothing. We did this while also industrializing a potential future adversary.

Way to go Milt.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Excellent! I have Weave on ignore. I gave the F-scale (as best I can remember it) from Theodore Adorno's The Authoritarian Personality. "F" stands for "fascism" -- and not conservative. Genuine conservatives (Bill Buckley was a prime example, as were most Republicans in the 1970s and earlier) have significant deviations from the questionable values shown in the F-Scale. They might be conventional by nature, but not as if they are scared that they will be exposed for some 'damnable' eccentricity. Conservatives might be authoritative without being authoritarian; they might be staunchly anti-crime to the extent that they would rather have a mixed-race family (the adults are straight-laced professionals) next door than a meth lab. They might call the cops on child abuse, drug trafficking, or the usual robbery/burglary/auto theft... but so would I, and I am a liberal. Without law and order all civil liberties are empty promises and prosperity that makes civility possible vanishes.

Conservatives can have great respect for scientific progress and no use for superstition. They might (as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. insisted) "judge people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin". Of course that leaves much room for harsh judgment of any evil-doer. Liberals hardly have a monopoly on rational thought, which is just as well.

The best constraint upon such a government agency as the IRS is legislative oversight. Complaints against the IRS make it sound as if the IRS were on the same level as debt-collectors for loan-sharks. For good reason we have higher taxes on the rich than on the poor -- taxing the poor is cruel and ineffective; the rich often have more at stake through the courts of law (like protection of their property rights against theft and infringement of "intellectual property"), defense (of "American interests abroad -- meaning American corporate investments), profitable dealings with the government (from water projects to government contracts), using the human capital that government expenditures (as on advanced education) made possible, and infrastructure (getting the goods to market). It's up to conservatives to find ways in which to reduce spending if they want to make taxes less onerous. War is obviously one of the greatest of all creators of national debt, so shouldn't we make it harder to go to war? Economic downturns that result from speculative bubbles imploding also bloat the national debt, so shouldn't we have laws to force caution in business dealings?

Genuine conservatives are hardly extremists. I would be far less apprehensive of the GOP if it still had people like John Warner and Bob Dole as the norm instead of the fire-breathing right-wingers who sound more like the fascists of the last Crisis than like our Founding Fathers. Conservatism is at its best a tactical retreat from liberal failures. Unfortunately the likes of Saxby Chambliss and Scott Walker mark the contemporary GOP for what it is.

... Global warming may be a real menace, but it would now seem that the hazard of reducing it to economic activity is far less than the heroic efforts to reverse it or compensate for it if it happens. Bangladesh might be one of the most unattractive countries to visit, but it is one of the countries that would be hit hardest and most catastrophically through inundation. It holds a large population. Does anyone have any idea of where its people would go?

............

I could make the case that genuine conservatives can look at the following:

1. Extrication of the US from costly and originally-unnecessary wars that have bloated budget deficits
2. Rejected the urge to have an economic boom as corrupt as the real-estate boom that imploded in the last few years
3. Whacked Osama bin Laden without killing Pakistanis or leaving a grave for him as a potential shrine
4. Saved General Motors and Chrysler
5. Promoted liberal democracy in the Muslim world
6. Greatly reduced anti-American sentiments worldwide
7. Addressed the escalating cost of American medical care (if not perfectly)
8. Put the economic screws to Iran on its nuclear program with the aid of the European Union

If Mike Huckabee, John McCain, or Mitt Romney had done even seven of these, then wouldn't he be in line (barring scandal, a military or diplomatic debacle, or a "double-dip" downturn) to be re-elected in a landslide?

Wow the ignore feature. Ever notice how is almost always the Leftists who use this. I could understand it maybe if I actually personally attacked poor Pete. He likes to talk about Authoritarians without realizing that Authoritarian types typically ignore anyone who disagrees with them. They dont like to hear opposing viewpoints or have their ideas challenged or have their tactics thrown back in their faces. These traits are often exhibited by liberals. It fits right in with their narcissistic and compulsive behavior. Thier view is that the average person is simply too stupid to basically take care of themselves and its up to them, the smarter, more superior beings, to take care of the rest of us and be dependent on thier wisdom. This gives them power which is why they really want most to be on the dole and thus rendered powerles to oppose them.


As to His 8 points I assume he is assuming to what he percieves as Obama's accomplishments. Allow me to retort....


1. We've left Iraq and it is descending into chaos as we speak. We'll probably lose more in the long run as a result.

2. I thought you lefties dont beleive the housing bubble caused the recession? Funny Bwarney Fwank didnt seem to mid the housing bubble when it was going on....Never heard a peep from Obama or any other Lib warning about a crash prior to this either.....

3.As if Bush orMcCain or my dead Grandmother wouldnt have ordered that assault.....

4. Saved GM...more like saved the GM union wages. GM could have restructured AND saved billions and had a stronger less costly future and we would have wasted taxpayer money on crap like the Chevy Volt....

5. Promoted liberal democracy...more like Obama has promoted the Muslim Brotherhood and theocratic form of fascism that is developing in Egypt and other places.

6. You are kidding right? Our best allies Israel and Britain are losing faith in us, our enemies are openly laughing at us and telling us the American century is over....

7. Created a Trillion dollar health care boondoggle that has minimal support and will probably be ruled unconstitutional.

8. Again, McCain would have dealt with Iran much tougher and probably would have helped destabilize the regime when the people rose up and revolted in 2009. Obama sat back and let them be crushed.....

Originally Posted by Odin

This uis false, the secession was about one thing and one thing only: Slavery. The Confederate VP admitted as such when he said that "Our government is based on the truth that the black man is not equal to the white man".

I know Southerners like to deny that the Civil War was about slavery, but that is self-serving denial, it was about slavery. When they spoke about their "rights" they meant the "right" to OWN OTHER HUMAN BEINGS.

If you believe the Civil War was about slavery we really have nothing else to discuss.

To quote from Robert E. Lee, a far wiser man than you and I ever shall be, "This war is not about slavery."

You can hold to your presumptions all you would like, as I shall invariably hold to mine, but it seems we've come to an impasse in discussion here if you believe this. So, I'll bow out of the conversation willingly because the Civil War did have some minor intentions regarding the cursed issue of slavery, but this was a very minor issue overall - if you see it as otherwise, there's no need for us to continue discussing.

j.p.

Originally Posted by antichrist

Odin man, sometimes I just don't understand. You are so often intelligent, why do you fall for such simplistic constructions?

One of the questions that always bedevils me, is why were most of those southern boys fighting? Even assuming they were flaming racists, why were they fighting to protect the system of slavery? I mean, it hurt the average cracker only minimally less than it hurt the slaves themselves.

A lot of southerners thought that abolitionism was an insult to their "honor". The South is an Honor culture, they felt insulted and they had to defend their honor.

Originally Posted by JDFP

If you believe the Civil War was about slavery we really have nothing else to discuss.

To quote from Robert E. Lee, a far wiser man than you and I ever shall be, "This war is not about slavery."

You can hold to your presumptions all you would like, as I shall invariably hold to mine, but it seems we've come to an impasse in discussion here if you believe this. So, I'll bow out of the conversation willingly because the Civil War did have some minor intentions regarding the cursed issue of slavery, but this was a very minor issue overall - if you see it as otherwise, there's no need for us to continue discussing.

j.p.

That it was about slavery is considered an obvious fact by most historians.

Lee was in denial about what the war was about because of his own dislike of slavery.