obama or carter?

#51
#51
So because I'm not sold on keeping out of WW1 and 2 - then I'm pro-democrat? I don't revere them as presidents - if there had been Rs in power at the time - I would feel the same.
 
#52
#52
tvolsfan said:
Losing half the country would make any president's tenure a failure.
Click to expand...

And that's why I dislike him. It seems that this was more about pride than it was about overall good.

Even if you agree with the war, it's hard to agree with the way he waged it: Total war. Widespread imprisonment of political opponents and journalists. Suspension of habeus corpus. Refusal to exchange prisoners. Etc.
 
#53
#53
nbakerld said:
You've proven you only have 1 argument. We get it.
Click to expand...

yep one argument the civil war started in,the eighteen teens over the expansion of slavery. it came to a head in 1861,u choose the righteous approach rather than greed. over 600000 americans lost their lives over the wealth of a few. agaun, I pity u for subscribing to the southern mystique. its not my fault u dont know history.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#54
#54
nbakerld said:
And that's why I dislike him. It seems that this was more about pride than it was about overall good.

Even if you agree with the war, it's hard to agree with the way he waged it: Total war. Widespread imprisonment of political opponents and journalists. Suspension of habeus corpus. Refusal to exchange prisoners. Etc.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying everything about the war was handled perfectly. I'm saying a war was necessary.
 
#56
#56
OrangeEmpire said:
yep one argument the civil war started in,the eighteen teens over the expansion of slavery. it came to a head in 1861,u choose the righteous approach rather than greed. over 600000 americans lost their lives over the wealth of a few. agaun, I pity u for subscribing to the southern mystique. its not my fault u dont know history.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting to hear about the part of the constitution that says secession is illegal.
 
#58
#58
nbakerld said:
I'm still waiting to hear about the part of the constitution that says secession is illegal.
Click to expand...

never said it wasnt, confederacy had no leg to stand on. just because a few hundred plantation owners are angry about expansion west and rivals with northern bankers does not justify seccession.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#62
#62
OrangeEmpire said:
never said it wasnt, confederacy had no leg to stand on. just because a few hundred plantation owners are angry about expansion west and rivals with northern bankers does not justify seccession.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Wait, so now you are saying that they were within their legal rights, but that their actions were not justified?
 
#66
#66
tvolsfan said:
You need constitutional confirmation to know that seceding from the country and firing upon it is treason?
Click to expand...

Secession is not treason.

After SC declared secession they were their own nation. They were promised that Sumter would be deserted. When it was not deserted, they promised to fire on reinforcements. Lincoln sent reinforcements, forcing their hand (because he knew they would actually keep their promises). South Carolina was acting as a nation protecting its borders. Far from treasonous behavior.
 
#67
#67
KiffinKiller said:
It's pretty idealistic to say it was all about state's rights. A little of both, maybe - but not all...
Click to expand...

sure, the southern mystique was founded dyring reconstruction to portray the southern cause as justified and patriotic. groups like the daughters of the confederacy sprung up, heck gone with the wind was produced for this very reason
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#69
#69
nbakerld said:
Secession is not treason.

After SC declared secession they were their own nation. They were promised that Sumter would be deserted. When it was not deserted, they promised to fire on reinforcements. Lincoln sent reinforcements, forcing their hand (because he knew they would actually keep their promises). South Carolina was acting as a nation protecting its borders. Far from treasonous behavior.
Click to expand...

far from treasonous, really?

remind me how many times south carolina tried the secession thing, lete know how that worked out for them under andy jacksons watch
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#70
#70
The press was more even handed back then... still tried to be genuinely objective. They turned on Carter pretty hard and hammered him with the term "stagflation". If not for the some creative math... it is hard to see how conditions now aren't "stagflation". The overall rate is low but consumer goods and commodities have inflated greatly.

I would still say Carter at this point. The Iranian Hostage ordeal was a direct reflection of his foreign policy ideas... that he has stubbornly refused to modify even to this day. Gas lines. Interest rates up in the teens. High unemployment.

Carter also gave us the Community Reinvestment Act... which is the direct legislative cause for the housing bubble that put us into the mess we're in.
 
#71
#71
nbakerld said:
Secession is not treason.

After SC declared secession they were their own nation. They were promised that Sumter would be deserted. When it was not deserted, they promised to fire on reinforcements. Lincoln sent reinforcements, forcing their hand (because he knew they would actually keep their promises). South Carolina was acting as a nation protecting its borders. Far from treasonous behavior.
Click to expand...

No. It isn't treason. It is a right guaranteed by the USC and enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.
 
#72
#72
OrangeEmpire said:
far from treasonous, really?

remind me how many times south carolina tried the secession thing, lete know how that worked out for them under andy jacksons watch
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Actually, they nullified, they didn't secede. Who needs a history book, now?

When New England states threatened to secede over Jefferson's election:

The election of 1800 was a battle between Jefferson and the supporters of limited, decentralized government and the Federalist Party, which advocated a more powerful and centralized state. The Federalists were so bitter about their electoral defeat that they immediately began plotting to secede from the Union. The important point about this episode is that this secession movement, which was based in New England, was led by some of the most distinguished men of the founding generation and was never opposed on principle by Jefferson or anyone else. It was argued that secession might have been an unwise strategy, but no one denied that states enjoyed a right of secession.
Click to expand...

Jefferson: "If there be any among us who wish to dissolve the Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed, as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."

Secession and Liberty
 
#73
#73
nbakerld said:
Actually, they nullified, they didn't secede. Who needs a history book, now?

When New England states threatened to secede over Jefferson's election:



Jefferson: "If there be any among us who wish to dissolve the Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed, as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."

Secession and Liberty
Click to expand...

lol your a mess
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#74
#74
George W. Bush

"In terms of the economy, look, I inherited a recession, I am ending on a recession." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Jan. 12, 2009
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top