| Author | Message | ||
     Pwnzor |
stretching. How can you say that? Just because you haven't seen the railcars yet? I hear the tracks rumbling. | ||
| Alfau |
If you've ever been in the Military you'de know that they do as their told. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by _the_United_States_military | ||
| Reepicheep |
Logically, a digitally imprinted SSN that is required to do... most things of real relevance... and a tatood number on an arm, are virtually identical (aside from the fact that the former is less painful and less physically invasive). Same pill, but with sugar coating. Both would very effectively facilitate identification and elimination of particular demographic groups. Without either kind of those identifiers, this kind of thing would be orders of magnitude more difficult. Neither is required to be used that way. If having a gun in my possession is more likely to make me shoot somebody, having a national identifier (either digital or physical) is more likely to make a government exterminate a demographic. Please make up your mind. | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
"How can you say that? Just because you haven't seen the railcars yet? I hear the tracks rumbling." drama queen. please tell me about these rumbling tracks have you all always been so opposed to SSNs? Or is it a recent thing where you fear it'll be used to ID you? How do you feel about your drivers license? | ||
| Swampy |
"How can you say that? Just because you haven't seen the railcars yet? I hear the tracks rumbling." I'm thinking Johny Cash! or maybe Jimi Hendrix | ||
| Kenm123t |
SSN are illegal for Identification read your card. That didnt stop it from becoming the national defacto ID. If your gov doesnt trust you you better not trust it! | ||
| Sifo |
please tell me about these rumbling tracks Metaphor. | ||
| Fb1 |
...Lincoln was not the last President to tighten the reins, so to speak, during a war. Wilson, FDR, LBJ, etc. all took steps to maintain better domestic control during foreign wars. Sean, Lincoln's "steps to maintain better domestic control" was killing hundreds of thousands his own frikkin' people (yeah, I know, they weren't technically his people at the time). That seems to be a fundamental difference between Lincoln and the other fellows on your list, amigo. Please correct me if I'm wrong. For an interesting read on a Union leader who thought he was on the "right" side, read Sherman's memoirs, especially the letters between him and the city council of Atlanta in 1864. It's interesting to see his take on the war and how it should be fought. Thanks for the suggestion; I'll do just that. Where I live, in my travels I see historical markers all the time entitled "Sherman's Raid" and then a description of the chaos, carnage, death and destruction he and his Union thugs left in their wake at that particular location. This eyewitness account of Sherman's Raid makes he and his men out to be perfect little angels, however. Not.  One Account of Sherman’s Raid in North Carolina: http://freenorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2012/08/one- account-of-shermans-raid-in-north.html | ||
| Seanp |
Lincoln, Grant, and Sherman simply brought to the people of the South what we've been bringing to our enemies ever since - war on their doorstep, hoping to convince the population that the war was not worth fighting. Ultimately, the Union strategy of exhaustion destroyed the South's resource base, causing them to have to give up the fight. Lincoln (and Sherman) only brought to the Southern populace exactly what they asked for. They knew they weren't going to get away from the Union without a fight, so they got it. Lincoln did it to protect the Union, knowing that the greater good was to maintain the United States of America, and not divide this land. The account of Sherman's march that you posted is interesting. It's wonderful how generous those folks were to their servants, setting them free when they couldn't afford to take care of them anymore. And I'd be willing to bet that one could find similar accounts written in German from World War II. Every story has two sides. I've read heartbreaking accounts written by Germans and Japanese caught up in American bombing campaigns, but I would never change the way World War II ended, nor would I change how the American Civil War ended. | ||
| Fb1 |
...I have a hard time believing the south really thought slavery was the correct states rights issue to go to war over. Sifo, my take is there were a lot more issues at stake that led to the Civil War than just the issue of slavery. I'm no scholar on this stuff, but I read every chance I get (not often enough), and it seems to me the reasons for the South ultimately seceding from the Union were many. (Out and out "northern aggression" springs immediately to mind, similar in many respects to what we're presently seeing here in early 2013, IMO.) I dug several books out of my collection this morning, to refresh my memory a bit before I replied to your comment above. As always time is at a premium, but I've taken a quick scan thru two of them, one of which is entitled "The Civil War as told by James Street, an unvarnished account of the late but still lively hostilities" by (you guessed it) James Street, published in 1953. (Got this one at a used bookstore in Washington a year or so ago; I'm a sucker for vintage history books.) Mr. Street pulls no punches and lacerates both sides of the conflict nearly every chance he gets. However, here are several passages from Mr. Street that jumped out at me in Chapter 1:
This doesn't "prove" anything, and that isn't my goal, anyway. My point is my belief that the Civil War wasn't strictly about the issue of slavery, an institution whose days were numbered, anyway, an issue that, in my opinion, should have been debated and decided upon by the states and not by the federal government, at a cost of 650,000 lives and the near-total destruction of a vast portion of our country. One wonders how many lives will be lost in the Second Amendment War?? Best, FB | ||
| Seanp |
The funny thing about how the nation seems to be split nowadays is that it isn't along state lines, or really geographically. It seems more urban versus rural, more "producers" versus "consumers" than anything else. I know plenty of staunch conservatives in New York state, but they all live out in the boonies. I know a bunch of liberals in Georgia, but they all live in Midtown Atlanta. I'm not even sure how a New Civil War could happen, unless it's a localized event. | ||
| Fb1 |
Lincoln, Grant, and Sherman simply brought to the people of the South what we've been bringing to our enemies ever since - war on their doorstep, hoping to convince the population that the war was not worth fighting. The difference, of course, being that the "enemy" was your brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, uncles and cousins and neighbors. Question: If our President used an executive order to, say, abolish an Amendment or two in the Bill of Rights, or, perhaps, do away with the Constitution entirely and replace it with something "new and improved," would you be OK with that? Such an action would surely cause some, um, consternation here in America. If a state, or two, or a dozen, or more, decided enough was enough and exercised their right to secede, who would you call the enemy: Our President, or We The People? Feel free not to answer, and apologies for my overall tone. Best, FB | ||
| Seanp |
Well that's the thing - it depends on a number of factors. I would resign my commission if the government decided to get rid of the Constitution. If they changed some amendments, that would depend. The whole reason we have amendments in the first place was because the founding fathers knew that they hadn't covered every base possible, and that they needed to allow for growth and maturity over time. Repealing the XVIII Amendment, for example, was a smart move. Repealing the XXII would be a horrible move. Like I said, I don't see a future Civil War being the same as the one 150 years ago. It will be either a right-wing President sending troops into urban centers, or a left-wing President sending them against "militia" compounds in the country. (Message edited by Seanp on January 22, 2013) | ||
| Fb1 |
Sean, I gotta call it a day, but before I do: The funny thing about how the nation seems to be split nowadays is that it isn't along state lines, or really geographically. It seems more urban versus rural, more "producers" versus "consumers" than anything else. BINGO! | ||
| Cowboy |
I think that would cause an instant race war----as I beleave the blacks would follow obama orders If that should happen then all hell would break loose.---Remember the blacks are for the most pard DEMOCRATS. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Nope, I have not been a fan of it, ever since I started looking into the 'system' and the architecture around it. That thesis of Nazi tattoos vs Social Security numbers got me suspended for a week when I was in highschool, and they threatened to keep my graduation diploma from me if I did not retract it. I technically graduated from highschool, though I never received my diploma; nor do I own it to this day. (1987) If you think the government is your friend - you have only a glossy view of the machine at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave (you should have heard the shiate storm I caused in Freshman economics when I bashed slavery as nothing more than propaganda rhetoric for recruitment in a war that was founded on States Rights vs Federal over trade/tariffs/transportation/capital ownership) | ||
| Pwnzor |
please tell me about these rumbling tracks Don't be so obtuse. You do yourself a disservice. Please tell me about ponies and rainbows. Lincoln was "preserving the union" in direct contradiction of the constitution. He waged TOTAL war against the civilian populace. He was NOT for equal rights, in fact he was dead set against it. I think it quite appropriate that our current pResident compares himself to Lincoln. On a side note, I saw Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter while flying from LA to Atlanta on Monday... it was pretty good. | ||
| Fb1 |
I think it quite appropriate that our current pResident compares himself to Lincoln. BINGO! | ||
| Sifo |
Fb1, I hope I didn't come off sounding like the only issue was slavery. I recognize that it wasn't, but for what ever reason it became THE issue. Perhaps the northern states simply out maneuvered them politically to make slavery the issue, but it seems clear to me that it did happen. It made it a bad poster child for broader issues. That was kind of my point when I said that slavery was a bad issue on which to address states rights. Frankly, with as bad of an issue that slavery turned out to be, I'm curious what would have happened had the south just caved on the slavery issue. They still had some serious states rights issues, but many of those were tied to the slavery issue from what I can see. Of course, it's easier to say cave on the slavery issue than to do it given how it tied to their economy. Basically, from where I see it, there's truth on both sides of the argument as to if it was about slavery as the central issue. I'm certainly open to learning more about it though (I'm far from an expert in this area) and would be open to shifting my understanding based on new facts. Civil war study just hasn't ever made it to the top of my list. Yet... | ||
| Cityxslicker |
The Civil War was about 'Slavery' The Coming Gun Confiscation is about 'Safety' The mass of men fly little higher in imagination or thought than the morning pages of the paper tell them too, if they read at all. (it was true when Thoreau said it in 1850s - more so now) Arguments that are complex, inter-connected, and dependent upon multiple agendas and moving parts require analysis, investigation, interpretation and TIME you will never motivate the bleeting sheep into thought - it can't be cheered about in 3.4 seconds, or spelled out with a catchy meme - so you find the lightning rod that will cause action/distraction - and blind the public to what you are doing ie Gun Control, Abortion, Freedom of Speech, Terrorism, Voting Rights, Acid Rain, Discrimination....yadda yadda yadda and every little rendition that was ever marched for and led by "What do we Want>" XXXXXX When do we want it ? NOW ...... all of it distractions for the further shackling of things you cant do, places you cant go, things you cant own, opportunities you cant do, - the herding and culling of the flock of livestock. (isn't it funny that the hippy - love - dope - freedom generation that is in power - is all about control, confiscation, compliance, and corral) | ||
| Fb1 |
Perhaps the northern states simply out maneuvered them politically to make slavery the issue... Perhaps. My understanding is that slavery would have been abolished by the South in due time without intervention from the North. Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation" (EP) was, in fact, a political tool, brought in fairly late in the war to "recharge" the North's moral, who at this point were psychologically weary of slaughtering hundreds of thousands of their brothers and fathers and uncles and cousins for no good reason. The EP applied ONLY to the southern states (of which Lincoln had no legal authority over at that time), and did NOT apply to any northern states, even northern states who allowed slavery. Lincoln, in his own words, said that if he could have "preserved" the Union without emancipating a single slave, he would have done so. Lincoln brutalized the Constitution, and caused the death of well over a half-million citizens, to accomplish his goal. That's a stiff price to pay to be the "winner." What if, instead, the North had simply left the South alone prior to exercising her right to secession? What if the North hadn't been so frikkin' aggressive ?? Best, FB | ||
| Seanp |
The South couldn't have caved on the slavery issue, because that was the basis of the entire war. Even if you say it was states' rights, it was states' rights to own slaves. Their economy was based on slavery, their societal norms were based on an entire population of people who were considered property, and even the poorest dirt farmers wanted to perpetuate slavery. The Northern leadership wasn't concerned with slavery in the beginning; they only wanted to preserve the Union. Once Lincoln did make it about slavery by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, the South's cause was lost. | ||
| Sifo |
Perhaps. My understanding is that slavery would have been abolished by the South in due time without intervention from the North. Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation" (EP) was, in fact, a political tool, brought in fairly late in the war to "recharge" the North's moral, who at this point were psychologically weary of slaughtering hundreds of thousands of their brothers and fathers and uncles and cousins for no good reason. The EP applied ONLY to the southern states (of which Lincoln had no legal authority over at that time), and did NOT apply to any northern states, even northern states who allowed slavery. Lincoln, in his own words, said that if he could have "preserved" the Union without emancipating a single slave, he would have done so. Lincoln brutalized the Constitution, and caused the death of well over a half-million citizens, to accomplish his goal. That's a stiff price to pay to be the "winner." What if, instead, the North had simply left the South alone prior to exercising her right to secession? What if the North hadn't been so frikkin' aggressive ?? Best, FB I think that for a northern boy, I'm pretty close to much of what you have said here. I wonder if at some point in our future if someone may ask, what if the _______ states hadn't been so aggressive on gun control. Of course, I have serious doubts that gun control states would win a civil war at this point. | ||
| Seanp |
I would argue that the preservation of the United States was a valid reason to fight. | ||
| Sifo |
I would argue that the preservation of the United States was a valid reason to fight. Not after you have illegitimately divided the nation in the first place. That's where things start to get foggy. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Fair question... but if the "United States" had a foundational document and precept that allowed succession, and you used force to deny that right to people that are a part of it, you aren't preserving it, you are destroying it yourself. | ||
| Chauly |
I'm supposing that you meant "secession" ? | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Little known chaos in economics. The gauge of the rail roads in the north was different from those in the south - it was such that the raw cotton from the fields had to be transferred from one railway car to the other - at the expense of the southerner raw materials coming from the north, had to be off loaded and put on the rail cars heading south.... at the expense of the southerner how long can you tax the rich, the engines and drivers of commerce, technology, industry - because you can - before they revolt? follow the money, you will find the foundations for the rhetoric | ||
| Seanp |
The South had four different rail gauges.  | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
"Don't be so obtuse. You do yourself a disservice. Please tell me about ponies and rainbows. " I never mentioned ponies and rainbows, you mentioned tracks... |
