Conspiracies, sheeple, the universe and everything

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Dowly

How it would evolve, I got no idea.

Probably the same as the last one, a large bloody mess that tears the country apart and is still being fought, but without weapons, over a century later.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Probably the same as the last one, a large bloody mess that tears the country apart and is still being fought, but without weapons, over a century later.

Yeah, probably. Was just thinking what would the "enemy" countries do. Would
China try to grab some land, would Russia go to Alaska?

Hopefully we'll never find out.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Yeah, probably. Was just thinking what would the "enemy" countries do. Would
China try to grab some land, would Russia go to Alaska?

Hopefully we'll never find out.

Russia would leave Alaska alone, because either side would have access to nuclear weapons and be more likely to use them against external enemies intruding on US soil.
China would probably lose its government in the global economic crash that would follow the beginning of a US civil war, and the military government that would likely take over (or a hard-left government backed by the military) would probably take the opportunity to eat Taiwan and exploit the absence of an organised US force in the Pacific. However, how much it could actually exploit would be debatable because it would be facing a lot of internal unrest.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Probably the same as the last one, a large bloody mess that tears the country apart and is still being fought, but without weapons, over a century later.

Yep and once again it would be a tyrannical US Government's fault.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Yep and once again it would be a tyrannical US Government's fault.

So Lincoln was a tyrant?

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Oberon

So Lincoln was a tyrant?

Absolutely. Lincoln was a divisive figure to begin with but instead of trying to work with the states, respecting their rights, their culture and understanding slavery was on it's way out , he launched a war without justification.Then the manner in which he prosecuted said war, such as allowing Sherman to pursue scorched earth policy, is just reprehensible .

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, imprisoned his many of critics indefinitely until the end of the war. Sure, there is a suspension clause but to jail someone for criticizing your war against fellow American's simply standing up to a tyrannical government? Not what it was meant for.This is tyrannical behavior, any man who would do such a thing is just that, a TYRANT.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

he is different

They always are. This has been said by every hater of every president we've ever had.

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Lincoln launched a war of aggression

No, he didn't. That onus falls on Jefferson Davis and Francis Pickens. Lincoln said he wouldn't fire the first shot, and he didn't. Argue about it all you want, but that's the bottom line.

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus

In a limited area, for a limited time. If Maryland went with the South Washington would be cut off from the rest of the country. Once Maryland was secure the order was rescinded and the prisoners released. Hardly the act of a tyrant. There was much controversy at the time, but Congress eventually agreed with Lincoln. Here is a very good study on the subject.
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/262...;view=fulltext

jailed his critics for simply speaking out against him

Yes, powers were abused, and not all by the president. I'm not about to justify all his actions, but considering the times it was not to be unexpected, and when things calmed down the prisoners were released. I agree that this was wrong, and the ends never justify the means, but none of this justifies labelling Lincoln a "tyrant". At the end he was doing everything he could to make reunion peaceable and forgiving.

among his many other crimes.

You haven't shown that the previous doings were crimes. Was the suspension legal? He argued that it was, and successfully.

All over slavery which was on it's way out anyway.

But I thought the war wasn't about slavery. For Lincoln the war was about preserving the Union. He was the product of the generation who rebelled against Britain, who said "We must all hang together or most assuredly we will all hang separately", and there is ample evidence that he believed the country could not survive divided, that one or both parts would soon be absorbed by one European power or another.

I agree that Lincoln had his flaws. All men do, and men who have the drive to achieve power have those flaws magnified. That said, I also believe that his motives, taken in the context of the time, were pure.

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Absolutely. Lincoln was a divisive figure to begin with but instead of trying to work with the states

You mean the states that seceded simply because Lincoln was elected, without even trying to work out an equitable solution?

respecting their rights, their culture

In his inaugural address he did everything he could to placate those States and gave an eloquent statement on his beliefs concerning slavery and secession. He did indeed respect their rights.

and understanding slavery was on it's way out

In that same address he reiterated that he wasn't trying to abolish slavery in the Southern States. Also, you'll have a hard time proving that slavery was "on the way out" when all the seceeding states cited slavery as their main reason for seceding in the first place.

he launched a war without justification.

Except of course for the part where he didn't launch the war.

Then the manner in which he prosecuted said war, such as allowing Sherman to pursue scorched earth policy, is just reprehensible

That's a valid argument, but you haven't been arguing it, just using it to justify your accusation of tyrrany.

Sure, there is a suspension clause but to jail someone for criticizing your war against fellow American's simply standing up to a tyrannical government?

Let me see if I have this straight: Lincoln is a tyrant because he jailed people for criticizing him, but they stood against him because he was already a tyrant. Which came first?

I can understand your thinking on this, but you are still expressing yourself as one who has long ago made up his mind and refuses to see any possibility that he might be mistaken. You're not debating, you're shouting.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

That's a valid argument, but you haven't been arguing it, just using it to justify your accusation of tyrrany.

Is it a valid argument?
What were the laws of war covering that territory at that time?
If it isn't in breach of those then there is no fault in the manner with which he conducted that campaign

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Is it a valid argument?
What were the laws of war covering that territory at that time?
If it isn't in breach of those then there is no fault in the manner with which he conducted that campaign

When I say "valid argument" I always mean that it can be argued. I don't mean that I agree, just that the argument can be made. How it plays out is another story. This is as opposed to calling people "Tyrant" and "Emperor", which are not arguments at all, but opinionated attacks.

[desertstriker]

bubblehead i always had you pictured for one of those uber Christian republicans that fact you seem to be uber republican astounds me if you are truly an atheist. normally the atheists are more in the middle of the political spectrum because both parties use whatever religion when it suits them the most (republicans christo-catho, dems everything else) and both parties more the republicans despise the atheists. that being said what do you think of independents like me who don't side with either party but like some of the policies of both sides? me i an not a gun fanatic but i support a round limit because i aint going hunting with an assault rifle. the main problem is that neither party wants to cooperate and get things done or address underlying causes of an issue again lets look at guns these mass shootings are done by people who are mentaly ill yet all we hear is dems want to take your guns (when i think thats furthest from the truth), video games are to violent, or we need to arm more people(which is ironic because that may mean a mentaly ill person may get a gun again) but i never heard a solution to the common factor MENTAL ILLNESS!!!!
that's my bit for now

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by desertstriker

bubblehead i always had you pictured for one of those uber Christian republicans that fact you seem to be uber republican astounds me if you are truly an atheist. normally the atheists are more in the middle of the political spectrum because both parties use whatever religion when it suits them the most (republicans christo-catho, dems everything else) and both parties more the republicans despise the atheists. that being said what do you think of independents like me who don't side with either party but like some of the policies of both sides? me i an not a gun fanatic but i support a round limit because i aint going hunting with an assault rifle. the main problem is that neither party wants to cooperate and get things done or address underlying causes of an issue again lets look at guns these mass shootings are done by people who are mentaly ill yet all we hear is dems want to take your guns (when i think thats furthest from the truth), video games are to violent, or we need to arm more people(which is ironic because that may mean a mentaly ill person may get a gun again) but i never heard a solution to the common factor MENTAL ILLNESS!!!!
that's my bit for now

I am a CONSERVATIVE first, a true conservative, not a religious one, one that insists we follow the constitution of the united states and have sound, sensible economic policy. I am a registered Republican so can vote in primaries and seek to do what is happening now, make the Republican party the conservative party and root out the "progessives", they have ruined the party for far too long.

Trust me, I fight with fellow about as conservatives/republicans as much as I do democrats because I am an atheist and not shy about it. Yes both parties exploit religion but that is because sadly our population has not evolved enough to not get caught up in the religious mumbo jumbo.However, since I live in a country founded on respect for individual liberties, I respect someone's right to believe in fairy tales, as long as don't try to make it law where it affects me.I often confuse people in class when I am the first one to defend a religious group's right.I will never forget the looks on some faces in a class back when the news about obamacare mandate on church hospitals providing contraception.I am pro contraception, think it is just outright ignorant to not practice it.However, it is not my place nor the government's to tell someone what to do in that realm, so I was there in class arguing for the catholic church.I will never forget a guy I sparred with all the time, absolute pinko commie, raising his hand and asking if anyone thought it was ironic mister atheist was defending the catholic church?

That is the point , I can put my own views aside in regards to the constitution and rule of law and everyone is supposed to do the same.While you may not go hunting with an assault rifle, it is not your place, nor mine, nor the government's to tell someone what type of gun they need, that is a choice and a RIGHT guaranteed by the Second Amendment.The Second Amendment says arms, not muskets.The founders knew the nature of man, the nature of government, the constitution was put in place to limit govenrment but also also provided a mechanism for enforcement if you will, the Second Amendment.The Second Amendment is the safe guard, they know they can only get away with so much due to a heavily armed populace.That was the point and it has worked mostly well as think government would be far more oppressive by now if not for second amendment.The garbage it was about hunting etc is propaganda, it is about SELF PRESERVATION, an inherent right.My politics are about one word:LIBERTY. Political, Economic liberty for myself and fellow citizens.Each time we give any little bit of ground, we lose some.

What do I think of independents? Well I think many see lunacy on both sides, and are turned away.I also think many are unprincipled, either because they are apathetic or just don't have the knowledge etc to care. Some are just trying to be pragmatic and may not understand the big picture.Example, I think if many independent voters full understood the ideology of progressives , they would never support a democratic candidate again but sadly, a large part of the voting public do not understand one bit.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Yep and once again it would be a tyrannical US Government's fault.

It wasn't then, and you're still trying to to force that faulty view into a discussion about something else. If your "knowledge" of that war is indicative of your overall perception, then maybe the people who keep trashing you are right. In that case you seem to have done zero research yourself and have no clue what you are talking about. If you want to discuss it further, bring it up in one of the several threads we already have on that subject. You don't seem to have read any of them.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

It wasn't then, and you're still trying to to force that faulty view into a discussion about something else. If your "knowledge" of that war is indicative of your overall perception, then maybe the people who keep trashing you are right. In that case you seem to have done zero research yourself and have no clue what you are talking about. If you want to discuss it further, bring it up in one of the several threads we already have on that subject. You don't seem to have read any of them.

Did Lincoln not launch a war? Yes he did. Did he not allow the war to be conducted in a terrible manner? Yes he did. Did Lincoln behave like a tyrant? suspending habeas corpus, jailing his critics? Yes he did.Nothing faulty chief, play again.