The Idiots of Brattleboro (Clinton, Kennedy, 9/11, economic)
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.
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and declared war on other US citizens to preseve the union. He was despised by half the nation at the time, but is now seen to be one of our greatest leaders.
Not by ALL of us. I despise him as much as ANY of our Presidents.
Not by ALL of us. I despise him as much as ANY of our Presidents.
So I suppose that a fractured union and continued slavery in the south would be a preferable outcome for you? To each his own, but I think that most don't share your view.
My point with Lincoln is that, in the view of most, he did serve the greater good, despite "getting us into a war" that required a US military presence in the south for more than 10 years. Reconstruction was a benign military occupation of the south.
Many times it takes the perspective of hindsight to get a real view into a President's successes and failures. Back in the '80s, when I was a college student, many liberals despised Reagan almost as much as they now despise Bush. Talk of "nuclear freeze" and all kinds of pacifist manifestos abounded, and he got raked over the coals for his tax cuts and economic policies. Most people with any intellectual honesty now acknowledge that Reagan's policies in the '80s set the stage for winning the cold war and building sustainable economic growth over the long term. Compare the country in 1979 to it's condition in 1989. Had Walter Mondale and his ilk prevailed, we would have taxed our way to economic disaster, and we would have given up on the cold war just as we were about to win.
A bunch of college kids yelling "yes we can" doesn't make it so. Idealism when you're young is a good thing, as long as you grow up and join the real world at some point. Obviously the folks in Brattleboro haven't.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,325 posts, read 54,323,752 times
Reputation: 40716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Wroblewski
I am amazed that your city will waste taxpayers money, voting to arrest the President and Vice-President of the United States. Stupid is as stupid does. No wonder the President has never visited your state. LOL
If you're a resident you'll have your chance to vote out the incumbents. If not, why do you care? Do you think they should be doing somethoing more 'useful' like dreaming up a new name for 'French Fries' or investigating baseball?
I wish the President had never visited my state, he mucks uptraffic with no upside to his visits.
And before anyone flames me with the point about budgt deficits in the '80s, that wasn't caused by Reagan's tax policies. Revenues were up through the '80s, but Tip O'Neill and his friends in Congress found plenty of places to spend it.
So I suppose that a fractured union and continued slavery in the south would be a preferable outcome for you? To each his own, but I think that most don't share your view.
My point with Lincoln is that, in the view of most, he did serve the greater good, despite "getting us into a war" that required a US military presence in the south for more than 10 years. Reconstruction was a benign military occupation of the south.
I see nothing wrong with it. I'd see nothing wrong with every state being its own independent country either.
Military occupation is never "benign". You apparently have no idea what the Reconstructionists did to the South.
I see nothing wrong with it. I'd see nothing wrong with every state being its own independent country either.
Military occupation is never "benign". You apparently have no idea what the Reconstructionists did to the South.
Given your view, nothing I could say would change it. Your view that "every state being its own independent country" would be OK, shows that you have absolutely no idea how absurd that thought is and the results it would bring.
And... yes, I have plenty of knowledge of what reconstruction "did to the south" but I don't share your view that it was all bad. What the south got after the civil war was indeed "benign" compared to what could have been done and in the minds of some in DC should have been done. The south got off pretty easy with amnesty and very little retribution for starting a rebellion against the government.
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.
