Random Pics from Washington March 09/12/09

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Wait - didn't you just bring up the US Civil War?

The difference being the Civil War had a lasting impact on the country, still here even 144 years later. The Iran Hostage Crisis- well did that change the very course of history for the United States? Nope.

[August]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

The difference being the Civil War had a lasting impact on the country, still here even 144 years later. The Iran Hostage Crisis- well did that change the very course of history for the United States? Nope.

It pulled us out of the post vietnam era funk.
It got Jimmy Carter out of the oval office before he could do more damage.
It got Ronald Reagan into office
It made enemies of our two nations.

The effects of these things are still being felt and will continue for a long time.

As for your previous posts: Dance around the subject all you want but calling for someones lynching just isn't funny.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

Thanks for ruining my country and what my family had there.

Things weren't exactly rosy during your authoritarian Monarch period in your country. I think Iranians didn't exactly do much to make their country a stable and wonderful place for all it's citizens before US policy there. What responsibility do Iranians have for their own role in the ruination of your country?

And as far as the blunder in allowing the Islamic Revolution to take place in Iran, you can thank the impotent Jimmy Carter administration and the Democrats of the time. You know, the very people you vote for in my country. You can thank people like yourself for Iran's dismal failure in two different ways.

August is right regarding your views between the Rebel Flag and the Iranian flag in your sig. You're just spinning because you can't do an adequate job of explaining it away.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by August

It pulled us out of the post vietnam era funk.

As far as history is concerned for the United States, there was no real "Post-Vietnam Era". The Vietnam War ended in 1975 according to Gerald Ford. Since it was part of the United States' effort against Communism in the Cold War, that's the timeline era it would fall under. And the Cold War didn't end until the Soviet Union fell in 1991.

Originally Posted by August

It got Jimmy Carter out of the oval office before he could do more damage.
It got Ronald Reagan into office.

Not the fuel shortage problems and Soviet's invading Afghanistan- when the United States supported the Mujaheddin? Not John Anderson's attempt at the presidency which got him 6% of the popular vote? Not the other independents who ran and took votes from Carter? Not his period of stagflation with other nations?

Carter did not lose for one reason. You and I both know politics is too complicated to allow something like that to happen. There are many things that decides who will be victorious, some larger than others. And with that said, comparing with other issues the United States had at the time he was president, the Iranian Hostage Crisis was hardly the biggest one to hit him- most vocally so when you consider things like the Soviets trying to push into and take over the Middle East and Carter's reaction to it.

Originally Posted by August

It made enemies of our two nations.

And now when Obama wants to repair it and Ahmadinejad and the clergy are willing to have it repaired, the Republican Party on a whole and some of the Democrats are saying that we shouldn't even bother because of some stupid incident that happened 30 years ago which didn't start a war between either one of us, or cause either one of us to commit terrorist acts against the other, or even cause anyone to die (no seriously, none of the hostages died and none of the Iranians died; Carter did fulfill one promise it seems).

Originally Posted by August

The effects of these things are still being felt and will continue for a long time.

But did any of these effects include a massive revolution for you all that changed your government style completely? Did anyone die as a result of this? How about a war afterwards which got over a million people killed? Did that ever happen?

No. None of these things happened to the United States as a result of the end of Vietnam or Cold War, Jimmy Carter losing the election to Reagan, or relations between the United States and Iran deteriorating. But they did to Iran as a result of the United States couping Dr. Mossadegh and placing a tyrannical monarch in power. And you did it because of greed.

Originally Posted by August

As for your previous posts: Dance around the subject all you want but calling for someones lynching just isn't funny.

What subject are we talking about here? The CSA flag image or Iranian-American history and relations? Because I addressed both quite clearly. Which reminds me, you still haven't explained why that flag is there.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Things weren't exactly rosy during your authoritarian Monarch period in your country.

Yeah no kidding.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

I think Iranians didn't exactly do much to make their country a stable and wonderful place for all it's citizens before US policy there.

Because we couldn't. Because the Pahlavis had a tremendous amount of power over us. The monarchs always did. They had the Imperial Guard watching their backs at all times, half the regulars were loyal to them, and the citizens themselves had nothing to fight with.

The coup the put Mossadegh in power was a great thing. But then they couped a second time and put the Pahlavis back on the throne. We wanted democracy and for a time we had it, but then it was taken away from us and that was a huge setback and major historical event.

Now I don't know how many of us deserted from the regular army when the Islamic Revolution began, but I know it was a lot of us. And I also know that if any revolution had happened any earlier, there would have been a lot fewer deserting to join the rebellion. And for the time, we were using powerful stuff. Most of it we got from the Soviets and turned out to be total crap when we actually used it against the Iraqis, but against ill-equipped and poorly trained militias I assume it would get the job done.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

What responsibility do Iranians have for their own role in the ruination of your country?

And as far as the blunder in allowing the Islamic Revolution to take place in Iran, you can thank the impotent Jimmy Carter administration and the Democrats of the time. You know, the very people you vote for in my country. You can thank people like yourself for Iran's dismal failure in two different ways.

Making it a theocracy run by Islamic clergymen. That certainly didn't help our situation in the slightest, but we could have avoided that in the first place if Mossadegh hadn't been overthrown. The majority of the people loved him, saw him as a hero who put his principles above any personal gain.

Well that fact never made me a fan of Carter, but it still angers me more than anything that Eisenhower and Churchill couped us after Mossadegh had gotten in power. We never would have had a revolution after that. Not saying the prospect would be an impossibility, but it certainly would be very unlikely. That's one of the reasons I liked Truman: he refused to meddle in our oil affairs.

Furthermore, Reagan and the Republicans would not have been any better of a choice. Yeah, they guaranteed us independence and shipped us some ammunition and weapons, but they counted on Iraq winning in the long run. That's why they dedicated most of their support to the Iraqis by shipping mustard and chlorine gas to them, by helping to train their soldiers, and by shipping weapons and ammunition to them. And the Soviets weren't much better, but the only reason they were helping us more than Iraq was because the Iraqis supported the United States over them.

I can thank both sides for messing Iran up. Neither one of them are saintly, which is precisely why I don't bother vouching for one or the other. They're both in it for their own personal ends. Nobody should kid themself about that.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

August is right regarding your views between the Rebel Flag and the Iranian flag in your sig. You're just spinning because you can't do an adequate job of explaining it away.

Spinning would be me trying to bridge a comparison between the two, and that's not what I'm doing. So no, I am not "spinning" anything.

What is there to explain? The flag of the CSA is in the pic, it's got no belonging at an anti-Obama/government rally (maybe at some sort of Civil War-related rally, but that's not what this is), and it's quite easy to infer that it's there to demonstrate either racist and unsupportive feelings for having a black president (that's always been the original usage of it; check out the KKK rallies sometime- they're never short on Stainless Banners) or to inspire a rebellious sense of attitude among the crowd.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

and it's quite easy to infer that it's there to demonstrate either racist and unsupportive feelings for having a black president

Sometimes the code is easy to break. Good thing there weren't any black people there to see it.

[August]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

As far as history is concerned for the United States, there was no real "Post-Vietnam Era". The Vietnam War ended in 1975 according to Gerald Ford. Since it was part of the United States' effort against Communism in the Cold War, that's the timeline era it would fall under. And the Cold War didn't end until the Soviet Union fell in 1991.

Yeah ok, like you'd know more about that than someone who lived here during that era.

Carter did not lose for one reason.

No he didn't but the hostage crisis and his bumbling response to it was arguably the single biggest reason.

And now when Obama wants to repair it and Ahmadinejad and the clergy are willing to have it repaired,

Obama is a fool for thinking he can normalize relations with the mullahs.

But did any of these effects include a massive revolution for you all that changed your government style completely? Did anyone die as a result of this? How about a war afterwards which got over a million people killed? Did that ever happen?

None of that stuff happened after the American civil war either. I believe the question was whether Vietnam had a lasting impact on this country. Nothing you have said contradicts that.

What subject are we talking about here? The CSA flag image or Iranian-American history and relations? Because I addressed both quite clearly.

If that's what you call it. It looks to me like a song and dance around the truth.

Which reminds me, you still haven't explained why that flag is there.

Well you haven't either dearie. Maybe the flag was put there by a Democrat party operative trying to make the opposition look bad. After all they have a track record for employing tactics like that.

like this

and this

and this

and this

Now I'm not saying the Republicans have never done this but the Democrats do seem to have made a habit of it.

That still doesn't excuse you advocating vigilante murder.

[August]

Oh and while i'm at it. 70% of Americans still regard Iran as an enemy. Not bad for a "stupid incident that caused no permanent harm"...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ound_the_world

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by August

Yeah ok, like you'd know more about that than someone who lived here during that era.

Apparently I do.

Originally Posted by August

No he didn't but the hostage crisis and his bumbling response to it was arguably the single biggest reason.

Arguably. Exactly. But moving on.

Originally Posted by August

Obama is a fool for thinking he can normalize relations with the mullahs.

And you know this... how exactly? It's certainly not impossible. I mean, we've done it with bigger and more aggressive nations before. Why- with Nazi-Germany, our diplomatic relations with them were favorable. And how about Communist China? We've got good relations with them.

If he doesn't in the end, then at least he tried. You can't scrutinize a person for trying. Not out of dishonest bias, anyway.

Originally Posted by August

None of that stuff happened after the American civil war either.

But the American Civil War in itself was precisely these things: a revolution. It began when the southern states split and organized the Confederate States of America, and the northern states remained part of the United States of America. War broke out as a result. Millions died, millions more were wounded, the government's view on succession and federal power changed entirely, and the course of American history was set on a completely different route (for the first time, blacks had the right to vote and slavery was abolished)

Originally Posted by August

I believe the question was whether Vietnam had a lasting impact on this country.

What question? You never asked a question. If you did, then I'd say that the war itself did, but the events of the Post-Vietnam Era do not any longer. Not for the government anyway.

Originally Posted by August

Nothing you have said contradicts that.

See above.

Originally Posted by August

If that's what you call it. It looks to me like a song and dance around the truth.

In the long run, how is this even relevant? Whatever you think it may be and whatever it truly is, the facts themselves stand quite evident and clearly.

Originally Posted by August

Well you haven't either dearie.

You might want to read again a little more carefully this time:

"and it's quite easy to infer that it's there to demonstrate either racist and unsupportive feelings for having a black president (that's always been the original usage of it; check out the KKK rallies sometime- they're never short on Stainless Banners) or to inspire a rebellious sense of attitude among the crowd"

Originally Posted by August

Maybe the flag was put there by a Democrat party operative trying to make the opposition look bad.

Maybe. Or maybe I put it there...

Originally Posted by August

After all they have a track record for employing tactics like that.

like this

So how exactly does Journey's question for the debates and opinion about John Edwards have anything to do with making the opposition look bad? And for the record, why exactly did you need to cite a "reporter" who states that Journey is a "big slobbering Anderson Cooper fan"? She (and you, for that matter) never proved that this girl was working as a "Democratic Party operative"; that she was "planted" there.

Why exactly are we supposed to just take this as you present it for granted- as Malkin presents it?

Furthermore, "Concerned Undecided Log Cabin Republican supporter David Cercone = Obama supporter David Cercone"...

...? What seems to be the problem here? I've known plenty of Republicans who have supported/voted for Democrats before. Are you saying that they're not allowed to have their opinion? How about Mrs. Anderson?

Off-topic for a second, but I'm just going to come right on out with it and say, as bluntly as is humanly possible, that Malkin... she's a bitch. There. I said it. I don't care if you (or her, for that matter; or anyone else here) takes offense to me saying that or not. She's that quack "reporter", if one could dignify calling her that, who worked for O'Reilly and stuck with him through thick and thin before becoming and opportunist and deciding to move out of FOX and establish her own "Conservative Blogspot". Apparently, she's also a jingoist- because she had no problem scrutinizing the Students Against War organization by posting their personal information and contact information online at her website. Then there was the Captain Jamil Hussein controversy and her drummed-up rant/controversy about Rachael Ray wearing a headscarf that she claimed was an Islamic mashadah (it's not even a symbol of the Jihad to begin with, you two-faced moron).

Originally Posted by August

and this

That's about the exact same thing you posted above. Did you ever bother to read it- or did you just Google keywords about this stuff as frantically as possible and pull up whatever sounded good? I'm guessing the latter.

Originally Posted by August

and this

Again, I see LiveLeak claiming that this guy was planted by the Democrats- but I don't see them producing any actual evidence to back that assertion up.

Originally Posted by August

and this

So where are the photographs of this guy doing this? Where's the audio-taped recording of him discussing health care with Dingell as this guy on FOX claims? I see them doing that a lot: they proclaim plenty of things as fact, but they never do produce anything to back them up and confirm them as fact.

Originally Posted by August

Now I'm not saying the Republicans have never done this but the Democrats do seem to have made a habit of it.

You're basing this not off actual evidence, but mere claims- aren't you? From the links you posted above, that's evidently the case. You never did check to see where FOX got their information from about Dingell and the guy who they said was a plant, did you? You never asked if they had proof to confirm the story, did you? You never asked if LiveLeak had any evidence to show that their guy was a plant, did you? Or Malkin and Coleman for that matter.

Considering how these people cover what they report (especially Malkin's statement on Journey liking Anderson Cooper), their reliability certainly is questionable.

Originally Posted by August

That still doesn't excuse you advocating vigilante murder.

I (and/or we/you) can advocate whatever I (and/or we/you) want. Advocation isn't illegal. You can frown upon it, but I can't be thrown in jail for it.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by August

Oh and while i'm at it. 70% of Americans still regard Iran as an enemy. Not bad for a "stupid incident that caused no permanent harm"...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ound_the_world

I'm impressed with Rasmussen's thorough poll-taking skills. It must have taken them a long time to interview all 305 million Americans living h- oh yeah that's right. They didn't...

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

I'm impressed with Rasmussen's thorough poll-taking skills. It must have taken them a long time to interview all 305 million Americans living h- oh yeah that's right. They didn't...

Dude, you need to know when to quit. You have been presented nothing but facts, and you continue to do nothing but create your own myths and spin like a top. You've been caught spewing weak and false premises, and you can't escape any of it. You cannot seem to account for Iranian personal responsibility for their own failure in the ruination of Iran...instead it was the US and Soviets fault. You see a picture with a confederate flag on a car and think that means everybody there is a pro-slavery confederate racist. (lunacy) You apparently don't understand that black activists are at these rallies as well. And they're opposed to the same stuff as these "white racists" in the pictures. You see a poll overwhelmingly reflecting the feelings of my country regarding Iran, and apparently have no clue that most Americans understand the potential problems posed by Iran. You're in denial over fact checked sources where Democrats were sabotaging themselves in the hopes Republicans would take the blame. And much more to list.

Dude, you lost the game at least a page back or so.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Dude, you need to know when to quit. You have been presented nothing but facts, you continue to do nothing but create your own myths and spin like a top.

I have been presented with sourceless blog entries and sites which freely state that they're opinionated for one side or the other- no independent ones unfortunately that are not blogs and freely state that they do not take sides. The burden of proof rests with them to show that their assertions are correct; I'm simply pointing out that you are taking their word for granted without putting any further analytical thought to it.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

You've been caught spewing weak and false premises, and you can't escape any of it.

And what are this "weak and false premises"?

Why try to escape? It is you who claims that these things exist, not I.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

You cannot seem to account for Iranian personal responsibility for their own failure in the ruination of Iran...instead it was the US and Soviets fault.

Which couldn't be more wrong. I've already stated twice that the appointment of Islamic clergymen to positions of power did hindered progress for the nation as a whole, but I also pointed out that the US' efforts did little to help.

Soviets? I'm not placing any large quantity of blame upon the Soviets for what happened with Dr. Mossadegh, which was my primary focus. That was strictly the faults of the US and UK.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

You see a picture with a confederate flag on a car and think that means everybody there is a pro-slavery confederate racist.

I do not think and them assume as you are stating, merely assert and consider the distinct possibility. There is a difference; I hoped you'd know it but it seems you don't. Either way, that would be stereotyping for the whole lot to say that "everybody there is a pro-slavery Confederate racist"- which is precisely why I never said it in the first place; you did.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

(lunacy)

Indeed.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

You apparently don't understand that black activists are at these rallies as well.

Very few if you watch the videos. Either way race never was an issue I intentionally brought up, but that just goes for me.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

And they're opposed to the same stuff as these "white racists" in the pictures.

Hey- you said it; I didn't.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

You see a poll overwhelmingly reflecting the feelings of my country regarding Iran, and apparently have no clue that most Americans understand the potential problems posed by Iran.

And you obviously don't understand that one poll does not represent the feelings of all 305 million citizens. Yes, you can never appease what everybody wants nor can you discover what everybody thinks and feels, but you're hardly going to find out from a poll conducted by a news network of any kind. Which is why I go by government surveys. They're on a much larger scale. Now if the people at Rasmussen cite their sources, I'd be more inclined to believe them. Otherwise, what they say is hardly of any value to me- or to anyone who believes in the burden of proof debate concept.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

You're in denial over fact checked sources where Democrats were sabotaging themselves in the hopes Republicans would take the blame.

FOX News brings on a man and a woman who claim that this one guy was holding up an "Obama=Hitler" sign at a health care rally and later turns out to be an advocate supporting Dingell, ergo a "plant" of the Democratic Party. They don't say who these people are coming up with this story, they don't provide any video footage or audio recordings to back this claim up, and the fact that its FOX alone does little to add to the credibility and reliability (in terms of accuracy) of the story. Just look at how they support people like O'Reilly and that morning group "FOX & Friends". That's the exact same reason I don't watch MSNBC. There's nothing to go on, lol. Just that guy's word. I'm not saying he's lying; I'm simply saying there's no reason to believe him as you and August are. Can't you figure that out for yourselves? The burden of proof concept is not at all complicated. But since you assert that these were "fact-checked sources", who were their sources and what's the backstory on the facts? I investigated and didn't find anything; no video footage, no audio recordings, no pictures, etc. So since you're the one vouching that they are indeed accurate, you find the proof that shows they are.

Again, I'm not saying that there is no proof and that the story isn't factual; just that they have shown an astonishing lack of proof and thus there is no reason anyone should assume they are being factual.

The same applies to Michelle Malkin's stories about the YouTube girl, Republican, and Worker's Union wife. She claims they're all working for the Democrats, but she doesn't provide any evidence to support her assertion- so there's no reason anyone should believe her. This isn't a matter of opinion, SD; it's a matter of logical principle. If a person makes a claim (or assertion, they refer to the same type of thing), it is up to them to present evidence directly related to that claim and topic of said claim to confirm it as fact. Dear god- didn't someone teach you this in gradeschool?

Now claims, evidence, and whatnot aside, Malkin's reputation certainly does make her reliability and credibility questionable. I mean, a journalist who says they're "fair and balanced" one minute and the next says that a person who likes Anderson Cooper is a "a slobbering Anderson Cooper fan" isn't exactly free of bias. You and I both can tell that that ; so does August (you're both smart enough people that you should be able to figure that out).

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

And much more to list.

Hey- I've got time. Continue listing.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Dude, you lost the game at least a page back or so.

This is a debate, not a game. If you can't tell the difference, there's no reason for you even bothering with this. If you want to persist, that's fine with me. I really do find it amusing and fun. I love an easy debate just as much as the next man. Though I know that someone is going to come along to this post and say, "It's long, and the only reason why it is long is because you know you've been beaten and you're just not willing to admit it." But that will not assuage this discussion in the least, nor will it discredit anyone in it.

[August]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

And you know this... how exactly? It's certainly not impossible. I mean, we've done it with bigger and more aggressive nations before. Why- with Nazi-Germany, our diplomatic relations with them were favorable. And how about Communist China? We've got good relations with them.

We're not going to have good diplomatic relations with a nation that denies the holocaust, threatens Israel with destruction, funds and trains terrorist groups and is actively trying to build a nuke.

If he doesn't in the end, then at least he tried. You can't scrutinize a person for trying. Not out of dishonest bias, anyway.

I didn't say he was dishonest. I said he was a fool for negotiating with the Mullahs that run your country and he is.

But the American Civil War in itself was precisely these things: a revolution. It began when the southern states split and organized the Confederate States of America, and the northern states remained part of the United States of America. War broke out as a result. Millions died, millions more were wounded, the government's view on succession and federal power changed entirely, and the course of American history was set on a completely different route (for the first time, blacks had the right to vote and slavery was abolished)

You said it changed our government style completely. It didn't. We had a President, a two house Congress, a judicial branch before, during and after the war. Then you say "Millions died, millions more were wounded" when you know that's a huge exaggeration. A little over 600k died and about 400k were wounded. If you're knowledge of the post vietnam era is as flawed as your knowledge of the civil war you might want to re-examine the basis for your arguments.

Maybe. Or maybe I put it there...

Or maybe somebody trying to score political points for the opposition put it there. Now you can infer all you want SH but the point is we don't know and you can't consider your theories to be "fact" and certainly not representative of the Tea party movement.

That's about the exact same thing you posted above. Did you ever bother to read it- or did you just Google keywords about this stuff as frantically as possible and pull up whatever sounded good? I'm guessing the latter.

Right, "frantically" seven hours after you posted. That's because i'm just hanging upon your every word...

I (and/or we/you) can advocate whatever I (and/or we/you) want. Advocation isn't illegal. You can frown upon it, but I can't be thrown in jail for it.

[/QUOTE]

Well I thought I was frowning on it. The only one that mentions jail is you. Must be that guilty conscience talking...

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by August

Oh and while i'm at it. 70% of Americans still regard Iran as an enemy. Not bad for a "stupid incident that caused no permanent harm"...

I wonder how many of that "70%" are totally clueless of the history of Iran and only base their opinions on what they read in American Press?

I have worked international policy for far too long to be impressed with the opinions of the public.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by August

We're not going to have good diplomatic relations with a nation that denies the holocaust, threatens Israel with destruction, funds and trains terrorist groups and is actively trying to build a nuke.

Oh please. Ahmadinejad and the clergy deny the Holocaust; but they are not the people- and their views differ from the people's, so as far as representation is concerned, they do not speak for the people. The citizens of Iran are forced to live in a theocratic government when they would have it to be secular in nature if they ever had the power to make it so. And they did at one time. But not now.

Nobody threated Israel with destruction. Not even Ahmadinejad- where that rumor stems from. He said it must "vanish from the pages of time". That's a Qur'an prophecy about how the end of days will come about, not any more different from the Bible's; it's not a declaration of war.

"Funds and trains terrorist groups"? What evidence do you have of this? I've heard plenty of people claim that they are, mostly the same people who claimed that Iraq had WMDs and was supporting terrorist groups. But did they ever confirm any of these allegations? No, they didn't. As far as reality is concerned, they were all bulls***.

Listen, groups like Al-Qaeda don't need anyone to give them weapons, money, and ammunition. You and the Europeans gave them plenty of that when they were unified in the Mujahideen against the invading Sovets; so did the Saudis. Back then, you called them "freedom fighters". Now, you call them terrorists. So which is it?

And yes, I do have a citation for my claim that they received funding from you, financially and equipment wise:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1670089.stm

Originally Posted by August

I didn't say he was dishonest.

I didn't say he was either; I said that a person who does scrutinize him for trying cannot be doing it for much more of a reason than because of dishonest bias. If he tries and succeeds, then he accomplished what he set out to do. Otherwise, nothing is lost or gained.

Originally Posted by August

I said he was a fool for negotiating with the Mullahs that run your country and he is.

Why? Why is he a fool? Because he's trying? I'm not calling him a genius, but I'm not calling him a fool either. Why can't you simply say you don't know what the outcome will be to the talks? Why can't you admit that we'll all just have to wait and see what happens before we can draw any kind of fair judgements?

Originally Posted by August

You said it changed our government style completely. It didn't. We had a President, a two house Congress, a judicial branch before, during and after the war.

The 13th, 14th, and 15th Constitutional Amendments abolish slavery, give equal protection under the law, and allow blacks to vote- respectively. The Republican Party takes control in Congress and passes the Morrill Tariff, Morrill Act, Homestead Act, National Banking Act of 1864, and approves construction of the transcontinental railroad. The planter "aristocracy" concept in citizenship is destroyed, industrialization undergoes radical advances in both production and sophistication, and the states that joined with the CSA lost billions in finances impacting the economy on a whole.

The 13th through 15th Amendments alone changed the "fundamental laws" of the country and government principles as a result. The Homestead Act changed for a time how property was owned and managed nation-wide until the 1980s. I don't think I need to clarify on the business effects of the Morrill Tariff, National Banking Act, or transcontinental railroad's construction. Putting it briefly, Representative Morrill's tariff allowed the Union to raise required funds during the Civil War, the National Banking Act of 1864 marked one of the first lasting bank regulation charters in the country's history, and the transcontinental railroad allowed for the faster transportation of raw materials, workers, and products for industries.

Originally Posted by August

Then you say "Millions died, millions more were wounded" when you know that's a huge exaggeration. A little over 600k died and about 400k were wounded.

Actually 700,000 died, either from battle or disease (that's counting the 40,000 dead from black units and 5,000 dead from Indian units, as well as civilian casualties; this isn't wounded casualties, mind you). You're getting that from military casualties alone, aren't you? As in- the blue and the grey on the battlefield. Anyway, about 650,000 were wounded (not counting black and Indian units), 200,000 of which died later either from disease or the severity of their injuries (such as stress on the body or surgical complications). So that brings your total to 900,000. According to Union records, 50,840 soldiers died as a result of side accidents. That breaks down to be 25,000 prisoners, 5,000 drownings, 5,000 general accidents (construction, misfires, falls, etc.), 520 murders, 400 suicides, 315 sunstrokes/heatstrokes, 270 military executions, 105 killed after being captured by the Confederates, 70 military executions by the Confederates, and 14,160 are listed simply as "unclassified". I don't know what that refers to, but that doesn't really matter. So your total breaks down to be 950,840 dead, 650,000 wounded- of which 200,000 died so roughly 450,000 were wounded and lived on. The Confederate casualties are estimated, however, by Burke Davis (this stuff is all from his book "Strange and Fascinating Facts" about the war; link below). This is also omitting the roughly 20,000 dead at Andersonville Prison. They didn't keep very good records, even about army strength. Davis speculates that their dead may have pushed up to 325,000 and Union dead may have gone up to 425,000 to 430,000- that's just from battle losses and disease related to the effects of the battles, which would take it just past the 1,000,000 mark considering all the other stuff he's mentioned. Whether or not his estimation is correct or not- I don't know. Personally I wouldn't doubt it, figuring up things like naval losses and Confederate POW camp losses it certainly doesn't seem impossible, or injuries Confederates and civilians suffered. I mean the SS Sultana's explosion alone killed like... what- 2,000 people? Including civilians? About 500 others had third-degree burns. And speaking of civilians, how many people were killed in the Kansas slavery and territory disputes- or by Confederate freelancers like Quantrill? I'd also like to find out how many of the foreigners who went to fight for the Confederates were killed.

Burke Davis' book: http://www.amazon.com/Civil-War-Stra.../dp/0517371510

Originally Posted by August

If you're knowledge of the post vietnam era is as flawed as your knowledge of the civil war you might want to re-examine the basis for your arguments.

I was about to suggest the same.

Originally Posted by August

Or maybe somebody trying to score political points for the opposition put it there.

I'm pretty sure I put it there.

Originally Posted by August

Now you can infer all you want SH but the point is we don't know and you can't consider your theories to be "fact" and certainly not representative of the Tea party movement.

Never was considering them as fact. Stated that several times already. Just tossing out food for thought on it and my two cents.

Originally Posted by August

Right, "frantically" seven hours after you posted. That's because i'm just hanging upon your every word...

The time between postings is irrelevant. How much time you took to find and look over sources is all that matters here. And apparently, you didn't take very long at all- because they were both talking about the exact same thing, not separate events.

Why golly-gee, I'm flattered that you are.

Originally Posted by August

Well I thought I was frowning on it.

Yep, wasn't disputing that.

Originally Posted by August

The only one that mentions jail is you. Must be that guilty conscience talking...

Far from it actually. But I chuckled all the same. Simply pointing out that advocation of a "vigilante murder" is fine and good and perfectly legal; it's just the vigilante that's going to jail for doing something illegal; i.e. performing the murder.

[August]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

Oh please. Ahmadinejad and the clergy deny the Holocaust; but they are not the people-

They were put in power by "the people". As long as they remain in power our two countries will remain enemies. Fact of life, get used to it.