Obama to sign landmark health care reform bill at White House ceremony

[sanvanalona]

I don't seek an accurate view of history by asking the public, if that is what you mean by "ask any person you see today why we fought the American Civil War I would bet my next harvest not one will say it was done to stop states from seceding". Well first off you owe me that harvest, I live in a college town and just about any history major especially u.s. history will agree with me, Not to mention the professors. People are sold ideas in order to have comfort, especially in concerns of war. I still don't see the argument of evil at all? I don't see how the U.S. has not acted evil at times, especially during times of conflict? Under your same qualifications for evil, then war should never be done. Were the 100,000+ Iraqi civilians evil? Or was their dictator evil?

 

[SoB]

I don't seek an accurate view of history by asking the public, if that is what you mean by "ask any person you see today why we fought the American Civil War I would bet my next harvest not one will say it was done to stop states from seceding". Well first off you owe me that harvest, I live in a college town and just about any history major especially u.s. history will agree with me, Not to mention the professors. People are sold ideas in order to have comfort, especially in concerns of war. I still don't see the argument of evil at all? I don't see how the U.S. has not acted evil at times, especially during times of conflict? Under your same qualifications for evil, then war should never be done. Were the 100,000+ Iraqi civilians evil? Or was their dictator evil?

If the people that lived through the Civil War era were sold the idea that the slaves would be free in order to have comfort did the Union Army not make this idea a reality? I would submit to you that the fight for slaves rights was far more important than the fight to stop states from seceding. The fact is no one can say what would of happened to the United States had we allowed the seceding states to go, it would only be speculation and not fact. On the other hand we know for a fact that the Confederates fought for the right to own slaves and had the war not been fought slavery would undoubtedly exist in our southern lands to this day.
“I don't see how the U.S. has not acted evil at times” this is such a broad statement that when read seams to encompass the entire country and all its people is this what you mean to do? When good men are forced to do bad things to protect their families/country do you consider them evil? Do you consider yourself evil because you are American? I ask these questions because I am trying to understand where you are coming from and what your view is. If you fail to answer or answer with more questions I fear this topic of the evil US will just be a waist of time. I guess to me evil is a bad man doing bad things for no reason. Was Saddam a bad man? YES fact. Did he force good men to do bad things? Yes fact. Was their innocent casualties of war (100,000)? Yes fact. Do I blame those good men for those deaths? Absolutely not. Do I blame Saddam and his minions for the deaths? Without question. Why is it Saddams fault and not the fault of those good men? Fact Saddam failed to comply to UN Fact Saddam forced the hand of good men. Can you inject speculation into this that the war was for oil? Yes. Is that injection fact? NO.
As for my next harvest I fear I cant send the hole thing as I have many patients in need. I will however send you a nice sample of my fine 1985 KGB when you show evidence of such replies.


SoB

 

[Beeronymous]

i submit this nonsense stops because this is all crap.you're trying to pawn off rhetoric as objectivity.fuck the civil war.that was 150 years ago,and on top of that,everything you were taught in school ABOUT it was probably lies fabricated by the same government that despite being formed after a revolution to free themselves of tyranny and opression(which itself could be a lie as well) is only perpetuating the same shit they themselves rebelled against! you're living an a hypocrtites playground man,pull your head out of your ass and get some FRESH air

 

[SoB]

i submit this nonsense stops because this is all crap.you're trying to pawn off rhetoric as objectivity.fuck the civil war.that was 150 years ago,and on top of that,everything you were taught in school ABOUT it was probably lies fabricated by the same government that despite being formed after a revolution to free themselves of tyranny and opression(which itself could be a lie as well) is only perpetuating the same shit they themselves rebelled against! you're living an a hypocrtites playground man,pull your head out of your ass and get some FRESH air

Well lets see how do we approach your ignorance? Although you may claim not to be one you sure have taken a typical Democrats stance in the fact that you cant defend your side so personally attacking your opponent is the next best thing. Truly pathetic at the least and a sign you have already been defeated. Your statement of “fuck the Civil War. That was 150 years ago.” Has to be one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard but as you have shown your true colors I suspect you are a fuck the constitution IDIOT as well. With that said speaking to you past this point would only be a waste of breath.
I did not come in this thread to belittle people, only to show the other perspective. I see this is your thread so I will bow out and not post here again. I only ask that you stay clear of my threads as the perspective of an idiot only divides us further and adds no context to a discussion. If you chose to belittle me or call me names after this post remember its only YOU LOOKING LIKE A FOOL.
Sanvanalona, Sedate and Lost its been a pleasure and I hope to share perspectives with all of you again in the future.

SoB

 

[sanvanalona]

Wow again too much to disagree with. If Sadam was evil, then so was Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and about every other president. Does that make the population evil, no. So I submit why kill the population in order to stop the atrocities of 1 individual? Can one stop evil with evil? I am not saying that Saddam was not evil, just that there is a whole lot more going on than just that simple argument of good and evil. War often has different reasoning depending on the side, therefore both sides become good and evil. If you want evidence of college professors here agreeing with the reasoning for the Civil War I will happily get a couple to email you. As far as the meds, no worries, got plenty of my own. The 85 KGB does sound quite interesting though.

 

[Beeronymous]

i like how he says he's going to bow out now because to type anything further than he already has is a waste of BREATH.nevermind the 6 pages of DRIVEL that came before

 

[Lost]

:icon_spin:

 

[CAPO]

HoBama?

 

[sanvanalona]

Now come on! How can you not stare at that!

 

[Lost]

That is a nice bootay! Even a black man had to recognize, LOL!

 

[Beeronymous]

LEVITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


:clapping

 

[Winchester]

Been enjoying the debate, great job by all involved, sorry to see it end, Sob you kicked ass. Beeronymous you should crawl back in the hole you came out of.

 

[LordDankinstien]

Ron Paul!!!!!

 

[sedate]

Wow. I have no idea how I lost track of this thread.

I would submit to you the American Civil War. Using your stance that people fight over greed instead of morality we can only assume that Abe Lincoln fought the war because he was to greedy to allow 11 slave states to secede from the United States. Surely the 11 slave states had a geopolitical value to the United States and to Abe Lincoln, is this why they deemed the secession a rebellion?.

This isn't the way I would phrase it, but yes, Abraham Lincoln fought the Civil War to end the rebellion in the South. Not to free the slaves. Sorry.

I would submit to you that the fight for slaves rights was far more important than the fight to stop states from seceding.

Lincoln disagrees.

The real facts are Abe had a moral issue with slavery because he was a good man.

When I said before, SoB, that you believe in American mythology instead of American history - thses sorts of statements are exactly what I was talking about.

Before I deal with your points, I do want to ask why you think the slaves were 'free' after the Civil War anyway?

Do you really think one-hundred years of sharecropping, Jim Crow, black codes, lynchings, the KKK, and poll taxes amount of freedom?

If the people that lived through the Civil War era were sold the idea that the slaves would be free in order to have comfort did the Union Army not make this idea a reality?

Hardly. The Civil War was never very popular in the North, and if you think WHITE NORTHERN FACTORY WORKERS are gonna risk their children for BLACK SOUTHERN SLAVES you have serious misconceptions about what the American public thought in 1860-ish.

You're reducing one hundred years of tension between the North and the South to "slaves" - this may have been the most explosive of the issues between the regions, but this was hardly it.

On the other hand we know for a fact that the Confederates fought for the right to own slaves and had the war not been fought slavery would undoubtedly exist in our southern lands to this day.

No, they fought for the right to nullify federal laws - barring that, secession.

Your reducing the Lousiana Purchase, Bleeding Kansas, the compromise of 1850, massive economic/social differences and stratification, and ideological differences between federalists and 'statists' to one of the most simplistic refrains possible.

You really suppose the Civil War was fought to "free the slaves" - hardly - this was an inevitable result of the failure of their rebellion - not the crusade of the North.

Anyway, you don't need to take my word for it.

Lincoln said so himself, hundreds of times, in hundreds of ways.

Perhaps most famously, outside of the Gettysburg Address, was in his letter to Horace Greely, then an editorial writer, who had accused Lincoln of crusading to free the slaves:

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

How about the Gettysburg Address?

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm

Lincoln fought the Civil War to save the Union.

Not to free the slaves.

He only injected the Union army into war after the attack at Fort Sumter. Under your premise that all war is a form of mass murder are we to assume that Abe Lincoln and the men that fought that war are mass murderers solely because the definition fits the action.

Your most common rhetorical technique, SoB, is to create a straw man - you take something someone says, and then extrapolate from that to the most ridiculous extreme possible, and then attack that extreme.

It's very Glen Beckian of you SoB.

Here is a good example:

As fare as your question of are we evil because we support evil dictators my answer is most defiantly no we are not evil by association.
Example: should you be called a murderer because your business partners kills someone? No.

You must be kidding.

Here is a more appropirate analogy to the United States' behavior, writ large:

"Should you be called a murdered because your business partner murders someone after you bought them the gun, drove the getaway car, told them it was a good idea, and then helped them bury the body?"

Lets take this further and say your business partner controls the gas line to your home and with out the gas your family/country may parish and your world could come crashing down because there is no other source of gas that can meat your demand. Do you walk away from your partner because he is a killer and seal the fate of your own family/country? Or do you try to protect the source of gas that provides life to your family/country?

The straw-man in action! It's easy to spot this time, since you lead with "Lets take this furthur" -

Remember how this started over the Iraq War - okay - Saddam Hussien was never some evil 'partner' bent on destroying the American way of life and all American families lest we launch an armed invasion with 150,000 troops at a net cost of a million lives and three trillion dollars. The idea that Saddam was just such a sort doesn't come from reality - it comes forth from the nether-regions of Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and Bill Kristol's Project for the New American Century.

This nonsensical analogy is so far from applicable I'm not sure how to attack it other than to point out the utter absurdity of it.

The second choice is obviously the correct one now does that make you a killer or savior? I would submit that you are a savior for protecting your family/country and you have procured some time to find another source of gas.

The United States wasn't running out of gas - and we had alot more 'gas lines' than the one coming out of Iraq.

Iraq War II is a stupid, pointless war that has destroyed countless lives.

The removal of one secular dictator - to be replaced by dozens of Islamic warlords and Iranian weapons - is not the better choice.

It is not a choice of defered gratification. It is not a choice of 'oil' or 'no oil' - it was a foolish, foolish expenditure of blood and treasure to satisfy the schemes of incredibly narrow men.

I am not saying that Saddam was not evil, just that there is a whole lot more going on than just that simple argument of good and evil. War often has different reasoning depending on the side, therefore both sides become good and evil.

Agreed.