No end in sight

[IndyBrit]

What?

Maybe Bush lied about some stuff - (specific example please) - but poor forecasting of the future, yes even stupidly naive poor forecasting of the future - is not lying (which was the specific example offered).

Slavery is not technically legal anywhere in the United States.

I'm all for contrarian shock statements, but in my experience they often prove incorrect upon review. I'm as disappointed as anyone over that kind of thing - I also want to really believe it's still illegal to walk your elephant on the right side of the road, etc.

[Sporting_Lisbon]

[quote=""Kaiser_von_Nuben""]As far as lying in government goes, it's all part of the trade. Machiavelli is the man when it comes to determining whether it's advisable to break your word. It is a question of pure, brute power. Unfortunately, all too often every ethical principles dissolve when placed under sufficient pressure, or eliminated by payment of a suitable price.[/quote]

Big truth, Machiavelli is the man. I'm reading The Prince atm and this guy on the sixteenth century already figured out everything on politics and diplomacy.

[Soccerman771]

[quote=""Sporting_Lisbon""][quote=""Kaiser_von_Nuben""]As far as lying in government goes, it's all part of the trade. Machiavelli is the man when it comes to determining whether it's advisable to break your word. It is a question of pure, brute power. Unfortunately, all too often every ethical principles dissolve when placed under sufficient pressure, or eliminated by payment of a suitable price.[/quote]

Big truth, Machiavelli is the man. I'm reading The Prince atm and this guy on the sixteenth century already figured out everything on politics and diplomacy.[/quote]

Yup. Niccolo basically said it's the JOB of the Government/Leaders to lie if necessary in order to promote what is best for the people. Now I don't believe that in 100% of the time that should happen. However, to Indy's point I think that what he said is what happened.

Put yourself in the same situation, you have an evil dictator (not Strokey in this case) and his regime needs to be removed. You do it publicly with your military instead of in private by assassination. How would you replace the government without seeming to be taking over the nation as #51?

[Kaiser_von_Nuben]

Indy is right about slavery. The Thirteenth Amendment--ratified immediately after the Civil War in late 1865--abolishes "slavery and involuntary servitude" in United States territory. I think the confusion is about the Emancipation Proclamation, the Executive Order that Lincoln signed in 1863. By that instrument, Lincoln freed slaves only in States "now in Rebellion" against the United States. The Proclamation did not free "slaves" in the North. But that did not matter, because there were no slaves in the North. By State law, whenever a slave crossed the border from a Slave State to a Free State, the slave became "forever free." That principle caused a constitutional crisis in 1857, when the Supreme Court said that a Federal Act violated the Constitution because it made slaves free when they entered the north. In the Court's words, the Federal Act "deprived slave owners of their 'property' without Due Process of law." Then the Court went further and said slaves had no right to make claims under law because only "people" can make claims under law, and slaves were "property," not "people." In an infamous line, the Court said: "A black man has no right a white man is bound to respect."

What a wonderful history we have! Can you see why I have contempt for the Supreme Court? Any institution that can call a living, breathing human being "property" deserves contempt, in my humble Protestant opinion (and the German immigrants agreed with me by refusing to settle in the South).

[Soccerman771]

[quote=""Kaiser_von_Nuben""]
What a wonderful history we have! Can you see why I have contempt for the Supreme Court? Any institution that can call a living, breathing human being "property" deserves contempt, in my humble Protestant opinion (and the German immigrants agreed with me by refusing to settle in the South).[/quote]

You sure about that? Most, and I do mean MOST of Texas was settled by Germans. Many of them my ancestors.

[Macabee]

There are lies and then there are lies. Joseph Stalin's government told lies but his government was based on a lie. Adolph Hitler's regime told lies but it too was base on a lie.

The entire neo-conservative agenda is also a lie, discredited by most. The Bush administration was often shocked, surprised and caught off guard when, in spite of all the evidence, the world behaved in a way that did not fit their preconceived notions and beliefs.

Let's take the case of the bushies' exalted Soviet Union expert, Condoleezza Rice. Before joining the Bush administration, she wrote a book called "The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army" in which she demonstrated the neo-conservative capacity for rearranging facts and dates to fit the "desired" world view. Not only does the book contain lies, more importantly the ideology is a lie.

Mac

[Soccerman771]

[quote=""Macabee""]There are lies and then there are lies. Joseph Stalin's government told lies but his government was based on a lie. Adolph Hitler's regime told lies but it too was base on a lie.

The entire neo-conservative agenda is also a lie, discredited by most. The Bush administration was often shocked, surprised and caught off guard when, in spite of all the evidence, the world behaved in a way that did not fit their preconceived notions and beliefs.

Let's take the case of the bushies' exalted Soviet Union expert, Condoleezza Rice. Before joining the Bush administration, she wrote a book called "The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army" in which she demonstrated the neo-conservative capacity for rearranging facts and dates to fit the "desired" world view. Not only does the book contain lies, more importantly the ideology is a lie.

Mac[/quote]

The Conservative Ideology is not a lie. It is the only form of government that has been successful for the US. In fact, if you look at the results of the last election, conservatism is far from dead. Just look at Prop. 8 in California.

Socialism has never ever worked for an extended period of time for any government or people.

Do you honestly think that Hilary Clinton is and upgrade from Condi Rice?

These things are all highly debatable. I'm just glad we all can have civil conversations.

The world has been behaving opposite the US for many years now.

[rufio_eht]

Fair enough, it appears I was wrong. It was in a US History class I was told that but I may have confused something. The E.P. did not just allow for slavery in Northern States, but in some Southern territories as well as I recall. But given the apparent state of my memory, i wouldnt put too much weight on that. Regardless, it leads me to believe that Lincolns agenda was not to free slaves as it is so often stated.

[adeadmanrunning]

his point wasn't to free slaves but to keep the us together. everyone thinks his goal was to free the slaves but this wasn't really on his mind he only singed the emancipation proclamation in which it stated only the southern states could no longer have slaves but nothing about the north and slaves. his entire role was to keep the south part of the us and freeing the slaves was an after though and a coincidence. at least that's what i have been told and inferred it as.

[Macabee]

[quote=""Soccerman771""]
The Conservative Ideology is not a lie. It is the only form of government that has been successful for the US. In fact, if you look at the results of the last election, conservatism is far from dead. Just look at Prop. 8 in California.

Socialism has never ever worked for an extended period of time for any government or people.

Do you honestly think that Hilary Clinton is and upgrade from Condi Rice?

These things are all highly debatable. I'm just glad we all can have civil conversations.

The world has been behaving opposite the US for many years now.[/quote]

LOL, I find it interesting that in a discussion about Condoleezza Rice, the topic of *** marriage comes up. I suppose that as long as people like that stay in the closet, they can be free in America. On the other hand, I can't think of a single notable accomplishment Rice has made while Secretary of State, so she and Hillary are about even so far.

If only neo-conservatives were actually conservative. Nations that dramatically increase police powers within their borders while demonstrating belligerence toward other nations and disregard for international law tend not to be successful. An ideology that seeks out the most evil dastardly people to build up and make into our most trusted friends, think Saddam Hussein, the Shah of Iran, Noriega, Pinichet and others only to make them directly, or as a result of the evil they do making more enemies for the US, is flawed to say the least. An ideology whose proponents make selling weapons to Iran worthy of sainthood while also proclaiming "we don't negotiate with terrorists" and then makes friends with Khadafi for some oil contracts is completely broken.

The use of the word "socialism" and the implication that it is evil is a cliche I've seen repeated often by "conservatives". In the US for example, it was found that private fire stations didn't work well. These were discarded because it was found that the collective good was better served if a "socialized" fire department put out all fires. Police, roads and the military are "socialized" endeavors. One of the most blatant falsehoods propagated by "conservatives" is the evils of socialized medicine. Made up horror stories are told about people waiting months and years for treatment while waiting for so-called rationed socialized medicine. I bet if some of our clan mates were asked, it would be quite the exception that anyone not in the US would choose the US insurance/medical system to replace their own.

Mac

[Macabee]

[quote=""IndyBrit""]What?

Maybe Bush lied about some stuff - (specific example please) - but poor forecasting of the future, yes even stupidly naive poor forecasting of the future - is not lying (which was the specific example offered).[/quote]

The list is so long but you only asked for one ... How about when talking about why we attacked Iraq, Bush himself said that Saddam Hussein would not let the inspectors in when I think everyone should be able to agree that not only did Hussein allow them in but they actually were in Iraq. AND, it was Bush that ordered the the inspectors out in preparation for the invasion!

Mac

[deadhanddan]

[quote=""Macabee""][quote=""IndyBrit""]What?

Maybe Bush lied about some stuff - (specific example please) - but poor forecasting of the future, yes even stupidly naive poor forecasting of the future - is not lying (which was the specific example offered).[/quote]

The list is so long but you only asked for one ... How about when talking about why we attacked Iraq, Bush himself said that Saddam Hussein would not let the inspectors in when I think everyone should be able to agree that not only did Hussein allow them in but they actually were in Iraq. AND, it was Bush that ordered the the inspectors out in preparation for the invasion!

Mac[/quote] war is and will always be the biggest money maker *cough* haliburton oil *cough*

[Kaiser_von_Nuben]

[quote=""Soccerman771""][quote=""Kaiser_von_Nuben""]
What a wonderful history we have! Can you see why I have contempt for the Supreme Court? Any institution that can call a living, breathing human being "property" deserves contempt, in my humble Protestant opinion (and the German immigrants agreed with me by refusing to settle in the South).[/quote]

You sure about that? Most, and I do mean MOST of Texas was settled by Germans. Many of them my ancestors.[/quote]

That is true. Germans went to Texas because it was more the "frontier" than the "old South." They could farm and ranch way out west. Although Texas joined the Confederacy, it was not a classic "old South" State at the time. There was slavery in Texas, but not in the same way as, say, Georgia, Virginia or North Carolina, which were much more powerful than Texas in those days. Germans who emigrated to the United States in the early 19th Century did not like slavery. Texas was probably the only spot in the south where they could work hard and know their labor was not being cheapened by slavery. By contrast, most Germans at this time traveled to Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota.

After the Civil War, I think the Germans started migrating all over the South. Once slavery was out of the picture, they went everywhere.

[Kaiser_von_Nuben]

[quote=""rufio_eht""]Fair enough, it appears I was wrong. It was in a US History class I was told that but I may have confused something. The E.P. did not just allow for slavery in Northern States, but in some Southern territories as well as I recall. But given the apparent state of my memory, i wouldnt put too much weight on that. Regardless, it leads me to believe that Lincolns agenda was not to free slaves as it is so often stated.[/quote]

Double post... but these subjects are just too interesting

I think it is safe to say that Lincoln probably did not care about the average slave in the South. He would not have invited former slaves over for dinner, and he would not have paid their rent. But I really do think that he wanted to abolish slavery. Yes, it helped him politically when he did it, but Lincoln was an extremely Christian man. If you really follow Christ, you simply cannot countenance slavery. You just can't do it. Not just that, but Lincoln also took the Constitution seriously and he saw that the lofty principles just weren't working when some people were "people" and others were "property." The whole business about "all men being created equal" just turned into a huge farce.

On a geopolitical level, Lincoln also knew that world opinion decidedly rejected slavery. The British Empire abolished slavery in 1808 and executed slave traders from any Nation as "pirates" if caught on the high seas. France followed suit. So did Spain and Portugal. The Germans never had slavery and German immigrants (largely Lutherans) hated the very idea that other human beings could be deemed "property." Russia abolished serfdom in 1862. Serfdom, however, was not as pernicious or racist as slavery, because Russians never considered serfs to be subhuman; they were just peasants tied to the land.

All these things were on Lincoln's mind when he abolished slavery. He was soothing his own Christian conscience, he was placating world opinion and he was "saving the Union" at the same time. Lincoln knew that the Union could not survive if slavery persisted. He had to take the monumental step of totally abolishing it in order to secure America's future as a modern Nation. Any Nation that maintains institutional slavery will not progress; history proves that. It is just fundamentally wrong. In this roundabout way, then, I would say that Lincoln's long-term goal was to free the slaves. The fight to "save the Union" gave him the golden opportunity to get it done. In any other circumstances, he could not have done it.

I had a professor who said the South could have left the Union without a shot fired in 1840 because it was still stronger than the North. He said it never could have left the Union in 1880 because the North was much stronger than the South by then. When it chose to leave in 1860, the sides were just equal enough to guarantee the bloodiest possible confrontation. Finally, he said, slavery would have died on its own by 1900 if there had been no civil war. I always found those interesting speculations.

[36drew]

This thread is out of this Canadian boy's league.