Conspiracies, sheeple, the universe and everything

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Please explain wise one. What I said about Lincoln is true? Did he not suspend habeas corpus? Yes he did.Did he not imprison many of his critics? yes he did.Did he not launch a bloody war that left a section of the country in ruins ? yes he did. All true, so please explain.

More deluded ramblings
Come on bubbles, I am still waiting for you to show just some basic knowledge of legislation in relation to your crazy conspiracy theory.
So far all you have shown is that you really are crazy and totally clueless.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by TarJak

And again your evidence for your assertion is...? Absent as usual. You really do need to research better and form more coherent arguments. And no I don't "thing" the world would be a better place without guns but I do think that.

Obviously, you don't understand the ideology, do some research then we can talk.The UN does have an Office for Disarmament? The UN is never offering a pro gun treaty now are they? Look at the people who run that freakshow.

Obviously, you don't understand the ideology, do some research then we can talk

Priceless

[Platapus]

I totally approve of this thread. It is like being able to go to the zoo and look at the crazy monkeys flinging poo, but then being able to step away when you get bored.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

More deluded ramblings
Come on bubbles, I am still waiting for you to show just some basic knowledge of legislation in relation to your crazy conspiracy theory.
So far all you have shown is that you really are crazy and totally clueless.

Obviously you do not know your history, he did suspend habeas corpus.I googled this for you, perhaps you can take the blinders off and read then again, you just ignore and insult.This is short and simple, so should be easy for you read but I implore you do some more research.Also mentions how he ignored Justice Taney's order also.



http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...-the-civil-war

Obviously you do not know your history, he did suspend habeas corpus.I googled this for you, perhaps you can take the blinders off and read then again, you just ignore and insult.This is short and simple, so should be easy for you read but I implore you do some more research.Also mentions how he ignored Justice Taney's order also.

More deluded ramblings
Keep it coming bubbles.

[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.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Well it depends on how far things would escalate and who tyrannical the government is.Saying it could not and would happen here is just ignorant.Unlikely? Yes, but possible? Absolutely.

You didn't answer the question. How would you do it? How would you physically take possession of an estimated 250 million guns in the hands of upwards of 80 million people. Ask politely? As I said there is no force on this earth that could accomplish this. There is no politician, including third term Obama, who would be dumb enough to suggest it. No police or military leader would be dumb enough to attempt it either. The logistics are impossible. Maybe you know something no one else knows. Again, how would you do it?

All it takes is the wrong person in charge.

Apparently anyone you don't approve of.

I could see an unlikely but possible scenario of economic collapse(which will happened if we dont change course, could be 10, 20 years) leading to widespread unrest and with the wrong politican like BHO or worse in office, perhaps lucky enough to have a majority and shoving some wild anti gun legislation down our throats

In a country that is in an economic collapse, explain exactly what 'some wild anti gun legislation' would or could accomplish. It would make no sense and be even harder to do. There would be other pressing problems other than turning a large portion of the population, armed at that, against the government. Again, not a chance.

Then suddenly, any citizen caught with a firearm after so and so date is a felon.All depends on timing and how tyrannical said leader is willing to be. Don't say things like this won't happen, they have, Lincoln and civil war are prime example.

Your view of American history is as slanted as your view of current events.

[Oberon]

I wonder how many other nations on this Earth who have had a civil war well over a hundred years ago, are still so heatedly divided today. Russia perhaps, although their most recent civil war was just under a hundred years ago, Korea as well, but that's much more recent. Ireland, perhaps, but again, although the history is long, the violence is still fairly recent.

[Dread Knot]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I wonder how many other nations on this Earth who have had a civil war well over a hundred years ago, are still so heatedly divided today. Russia perhaps, although their most recent civil war was just under a hundred years ago, Korea as well, but that's much more recent. Ireland, perhaps, but again, although the history is long, the violence is still fairly recent.

The difference between the US and secession in Africa, Eastern Europe, Asia, etc, is that the in US, we drew up our own union. In Africa, Eastern Europe and Asia, the French the English, the Russians, the Ottomans and the Chinese drew up borders for other peoples.

Also, the mythos of the "Lost Cause" dies hard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Ca...he_Confederacy

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Dread Knot

The difference between the US and secession in Africa, Eastern Europe, Asia, etc, is that the in US, we drew up our own union. In Africa, Eastern Europe and Asia, the French the English, the Russians, the Ottomans and the Chinese drew up borders for other peoples.

Also, the mythos of the "Lost Cause" dies hard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Ca...he_Confederacy

Aye, bit like the old Stab in the Back theory after WWI. Defeat really is too bitter a pill to swallow for some.
Fully agreed on the designation of borders, and we're seeing the end result of that in North Africa and the Middle East today, the infamous (well, infamous now but relatively unknown before the Syrian civil war) Sykes-Picot agreement.
However, there are plenty of other nations that don't fall into that category, although their civil wars generally happened much longer ago. I mean, let's face it, most of Europe has been at war with both itself and everyone else in Europe at some point over the last two thousand years.

[Betonov]

Yugoslavia had it's own civil war during WWII.

Still abused for political points today. To the point of stalemating the economy.

[Dread Knot]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I mean, let's face it, most of Europe has been at war with both itself and everyone else in Europe at some point over the last two thousand years.

Over its tumultuous 1200-year history the Roman Empire was mostly in a state of near civil war or out right civil war. Eventually it did break into two halves. Seems to be the fate of some nations.

What did they say in the beginning of the HBO series? Rome ruled most of the known world. It couldn't rule itself.