Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mr. Daniels is the "soft Right's" answer to Bob Dylan; he's good with words, irreverent, and draws a following. He doesn't have easy answers any more than does the next guy or gal -- but he's more likely to draw criticism, and he'll never win a Nobel Prize by pleasing the whims of a small clique of Scandinavian academics.
I worry for our future. Things are not right with civil behavior in this country.
From the article
"I see young people interviewed on television who can't even articulate the reason they are protesting. Others bent on destruction who probably espouse no cause but chaos.
I've seen hysterical protestors screaming about First Amendment rights which they seem to think only protect them and those who think like them and that the opposition has no First Amendment protection and should be shouted down at all costs.
The rhetoric is becoming hotter and more nonsensical, the radical element more apparent, the violence and destruction of property more common place."
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,351 posts, read 54,502,307 times
Reputation: 40809
Quote:
Originally Posted by G1..
Charlie is right but the communist thing is stupid.
While I agree with the ideas, I have to think it silly to say "Southerners had to know that slavery was an abomination to the principles they had fought and died for in the Revolution." considering how many fathers of the revolution were Southern slave owners.
It was entirely about slavery. They can call it state's rights all they want, but the only state right being harmed was the right to count human beings as property.
No it wasn't. That was a big factor, but not the only factor. You need some better historical references--preferably from the people who were there and lived it, rather than the ivory tower "history" professors who want to re-write history by citing only the most radical and disillusioned sources of the times. Read the material written by normal folks living their everyday life in those places and times. It's so much more enlightening. They knew what they were thinking on the whole way more so than some lib professor sitting his ass in an air conditioned office poring over propaganda from the time.
Look at it this way, is the modern radical left and radical right indicative of the way the 95% of the rest of us think today? The same applied back then. Yet that seems to be the only point of view modern historians present to the rest of us. What about all those "regular" people who were just living their lives in the country? How did they feel? What were their views? Well, if all you read is modern-authored history, you will never know because those people have no voice. Dig up some reality--lot's of folks wrote journals and letters back then--even those who could barely write. And, unlike today, there was a bit of real journalism presented, at least to a greater extent than today. But when you base your knowledge of history only on the most radical elements, your view of history is bound to be pretty skewed.
-------------------------------------
As for Charlie Daniels and his article: very well done. It's some of the replies below his piece that scares me--and reaffirms my opinion that there is no repairing the rift. Too much indoctrination has taken place. It's going to take a generation of kamikazes to get beyond the fanaticism and hate. Once the radicals are dead, perhaps the next generation will have learned something, at least for a generation or two. We are trapped in a revolving door just as surely as Bill Murray was in the movie Groundhog Day.
I will comment on the irony of this statement though:
Quote:
No man has the right to own another man, to reap the fruits of his labor for nothing, to consider his children nothing more than commodities to be sold off or traded away on a whim, separating families and breeding human beings like livestock.
What do you think the government does by taxing our income?
I agree with it up until the point where he predicts the liberals will start it. While there could be civil unrest that originates on the far left (like we've already seen in Portland and Berkeley), I imagine the civil war will be started by the far-right. Why? The Left is very disorganized and lacks focus compared to the Right. We saw this at the beginning of this decade. The Tea Party was very successful at organizing around a core message while Occupy Wall St fell apart because it lacked cohesion.
The far right is well organized, armed, and they have an agenda. Once their man Trump is no longer in office, especially if our next President is a liberal Democrat, it wouldn't surprise me one bit to see calls to take up arms. This could be hastened if Trump is impeached.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
