The Briefing Room
General Category => Editorial/Opinion/Blogs => Topic started by: Fishrrman on October 24, 2014, 01:57:42 pm
-
http://www.creators.com/conservative/pat-buchanan/things-fall-apart.html
Things Fall Apart
by Patrick J. Buchanan
When this writer was 3 years old, the Empire of Japan devastated Battleship Row of the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor.
Before I was 7, Gen. MacArthur was in an office in Tokyo overlooking the Imperial Palace, dictating to a shattered Japan.
In 1956, President Eisenhower, impressed by the autobahn he had seen in Hitler's Reich, ordered a U.S. Interstate Highway System constructed, tying America together, one of the great public works projects in all history.
Within a decade, the system was on its way to completion.
In 1961, John F. Kennedy said the United States, beaten into space by Nikita Khrushchev's Soviet Union, would put a man on the moon and return him to earth within the decade.
In July 1969, President Nixon, on the deck of the carrier Hornet, welcomed home Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins of Apollo 11.
What ever became of that America? What ever became of that can-do nation? What has happened to us?
This October saw the vaunted Center for Disease Control and Prevention fumbling over basic questions on how to protect Americans from an Ebola epidemic in three small countries of West Africa.
In September, an intruder with a knife climbed the White House fence, trotted across the North lawn, walked through the unlocked front door of the president's house, barreled over a female officer, and ran around the East Room before being tackled by a Secret Service agent going off duty. The president had just departed.
Days earlier, an armed security guard in Atlanta with a violent criminal past was allowed by Secret Service to ride an elevator with Barack Obama.
Last summer came reports that 60,000 children and young people from Central America had walked across the border into the United States, overwhelming our Border Patrol.
Last spring, we learned that sick and suffering vets were deliberately made to wait months for appointments to see VA doctors, and dozens may have died during the wait.
Earlier, the rollout of Obamacare, years in preparation, became a national joke and a metaphor for government incompetence.
Under President Bush came Katrina, where 30,000 residents of New Orleans were stranded for days behind a pool of stagnant water after a hurricane. The city and state couldn't handle it.
Yet, during five days in 1940, 350,000 British troops, besieged at Dunkirk, were rescued from across the Channel by their countrymen in boats and yachts under the guns of the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe.
Such events have contributed to a collapse of confidence among Americans in the competency of their leaders and their government.
Large majorities now believe America is heading downhill, that the future will not be as good as the past, that we are going in the wrong direction.
Malaise pervades the republic.
And there are larger reasons for these sentiments.
Our recent wars, in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, all seem to have left them and us worse off. In fighting our new war in Iraq and Syria we have neither a credible strategy nor sufficient troops to prevail against the Islamic State.
Already, Americans are asking: Why is this our war?
Since the mid-1970s, the real wages of working Americans have stagnated as we have run uninterrupted trade deficits totaling more than $10 trillion. Under Obama the national debt has surpassed the Gross Domestic Product.
Our manufacturing base has been hollowed out with Detroit as Exhibit A. We outsource our future by borrowing from China to buy from China.
We borrow from Japan and Europe to defend Japan and Europe, though World War II has been over for 70 years.
FedEx tracks with precision millions of packages a day. But the U.S. government cannot locate and send back 12 million illegal aliens.
Thirty years after a Reagan amnesty that carried a commitment to secure our borders, Obama is preparing an executive amnesty for untold millions of illegals, as soon as the election is over. And still the borders are not secure.
If government is conceded a role in anything, it is in building roads, bridges, highways and airports, and in running public schools.
Yet our infrastructure is crumbling, U.S. children fall lower and lower in international competition, and the racial divide in academic performances has never closed, despite an investment of trillions in education over half a century. Even Joe Biden calls LaGuardia a "Third World" airport.
Many private institutions are succeeding splendidly. But our public institutions, save the military, seem to be broadly failing.
Congress is gridlocked. The president is seen as a dithering incompetent. The Supreme Court is polarized irreparably.
Our political, racial and cultural clashes, traceable to conflicts created by the revolutions of the 1960s, are daily magnified and exacerbated by cable TV, the Internet and social media.
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world," wrote the poet Yeats.
Clare Luce put is another way. In this world, she said, there are two kinds of people — optimists and pessimists. "The pessimists are better informed."
-
Many's the time I've been mistaken,
And many times confused
And I've often felt forsaken,
And certainly misused.
But it's all right, it's all right,
I'm just weary to my bones
Still, you don't expect to be
Bright and Bon Vivant
So far away from home,
So far away from home.
I don't know a soul who's not been battered
Don't have a friend who feels at ease
Don't know a dream that's not been shattered
Or driven to it's knees.
But it's all right, all right,
We've lived so well so long
Still, when I think of the road we're traveling on,
I wonder what went wrong,
I can't help it
I wonder what went wrong.
And I dreamed I was flying.
I dreamed my soul rose unexpectedly,
And looking back down on me,
Smiled reassuringly,
And I dreamed I was dying.
And far above, my eyes could clearly see
The Statue of Liberty,
Drifting away to sea
And I dreamed I was flying.
We come on a ship we call the Mayflower,
We come on a ship that sailed the moon
We come at the age's most uncertain hour
And sing the American tune
But it's all right, it's all right
You can't be forever blessed
Still, tomorrow's gonna be another working day
And I'm trying to get some rest,
That's all, I'm trying to get some rest.
Back around 1973, Paul Simon wrote more than he knew with "American Tune":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0wIbgDVp5c
-
The mood of the nation is a lot like when Carter was in office, giving speeches in his sweater from the White House...
-
"All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
Buchanan's words are now proceeding to stage 3.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/arthurscho103608.html#3BECqFA17D7Z2iJR.99
-
Buchanan's words are now proceeding to stage 3.
I would definitely agree!
-
I would definitely agree!
As do I.
-
The mood of the nation is a lot like when Carter was in office, giving speeches in his sweater from the White House...
I remember that time, and up until Obama was elected - that was the gloomiest, most depressing time period of my life.
-
I remember that time, and up until Obama was elected - that was the gloomiest, most depressing time period of my life.
I just hope that history repeats and we get another Reaganesque president to follow Bambi...
-
Most importantly we MUST begin to try to understand WHY truth must be ridiculed and violently opposed before it is accepted as being self-evident.
Then we need to change that!
-
Most importantly we MUST begin to try to understand WHY truth must be ridiculed and violently opposed before it is accepted as being self-evident.
Then we need to change that!
I don't think you can change that, Bigun.
"What it is is human weakness. You can't kill that with a gun." - Michael Sandor in "Shooter"
-
I don't think you can change that, Bigun.
"What it is is human weakness. You can't kill that with a gun." - Michael Sandor in "Shooter"
Perhaps so! But my thing is changing things that cannot be changed!
You cannot change anything if you don't try!
-
What happened to the government that led those tremendous achievements? Well, as pointed out, many things, but at or near the top of that list must be the radical environmental movement that has made large scale infrastructure projects impossible. The Luddites have taken over culture and government and use its legal system to enforce their beliefs.
-
“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless.
Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”
Deitrich Bonhoeffer
"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle, is a species of vice."
Thomas Paine, 1792
“No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders. “
Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren, November 4, 1775
-
Bigun wrote above:
[[ Perhaps so! But my thing is changing things that cannot be changed!
You cannot change anything if you don't try! ]]
There are things that can be changed, and other things that cannot.
Again, Fishrrman's credo:
"Reality is what it is. It is not what we believe it to be."
Essential to "coming to grips" with reality is seeing the truth that there are some problems for which there are no solutions.
That there are some questions to which there are no answers.
And then, moving on from there...
-
America has lost its way because America has lost its moral compass. Our values and principles have been under assault for several generations, owing to the purposeful Progressive corruption of our social institutions and their perversion to overtly political ends.
-
America has lost its way because America has lost its moral compass. Our values and principles have been under assault for several generations, owing to the purposeful Progressive corruption of our social institutions and their perversion to overtly political ends.
“America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville
-
America has lost its way because America has lost its moral compass. Our values and principles have been under assault for several generations, owing to the purposeful Progressive corruption of our social institutions and their perversion to overtly political ends.
I would disagree. America, as founded, had a much more broken moral compass. Holding others in bondage for the first 75 years is second only to killing them in the womb. There is a second war on the horizon. It's going to make the first look like a day at the beach.
-
I would disagree. America, as founded, had a much more broken moral compass. Holding others in bondage for the first 75 years is second only to killing them in the womb. There is a second war on the horizon. It's going to make the first look like a day at the beach.
Quick explanation:
It's only in the past 15 years or so with the various sonograms and related technology have we seen how "human" these so called embryos are.
-
I would disagree. America, as founded, had a much more broken moral compass. Holding others in bondage for the first 75 years is second only to killing them in the womb. There is a second war on the horizon. It's going to make the first look like a day at the beach.
I do not accept the argument that slavery is akin to America's Original Sin.
The social institution of slavery was, in fact a denial of the values upon which this nation was founded ("We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."), stemming from a false belief about the essential humanity of black persons.
Only a small number of American colonists or citizens ever owned slaves, and many more Americans opposed the practice.
And yet I feel safe in proclaiming that none among either of these groups - slave owners and abolitionists - would have willingly countenanced the intentional destruction of unborn children in their mothers' wombs, and would have been properly appalled by it.
Which ought to illustrate just how far from our original virtues we have now fallen.
-
I do not accept the argument that slavery is akin to America's Original Sin.
The social institution of slavery was, in fact a denial of the values upon which this nation was founded ("We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."), stemming from a false belief about the essential humanity of black persons.
Only a small number of American colonists or citizens ever owned slaves, and many more Americans opposed the practice.
And yet I feel safe in proclaiming that none among either of these groups - slave owners and abolitionists - would have willingly countenanced the intentional destruction of unborn children in their mothers' wombs, and would have been properly appalled by it.
Which ought to illustrate just how far from our original virtues we have now fallen.
:amen: :amen: and :amen:
-
The social institution of slavery was, in fact a denial of the values upon which this nation was founded ("We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."), stemming from a false belief about the essential humanity of black persons.
Just as abortion stems from a false belief about the essential humanity of the unborn...
-
I do not accept the argument that slavery is akin to America's Original Sin.
The social institution of slavery was, in fact a denial of the values upon which this nation was founded ("We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."), stemming from a false belief about the essential humanity of black persons.
Only a small number of American colonists or citizens ever owned slaves, and many more Americans opposed the practice.
Yet slavery didn't become unconstitutional until 1865.
And yet I feel safe in proclaiming that none among either of these groups - slave owners and abolitionists - would have willingly countenanced the intentional destruction of unborn children in their mothers' wombs, and would have been properly appalled by it.
Which ought to illustrate just how far from our original virtues we have now fallen.
The first law against abortion didn't take place until the 1820s in the US, and then only after the fetus had quickened (2d term). And the Catholic Church didn't officially consider early stage abortion as murder until 1859, because before that a soul didn't enter until quickening. So no, abortion wasn't exactly as unacceptable as many think.
-
The first law against abortion didn't take place until the 1820s in the US, and then only after the fetus had quickened (2d term). And the Catholic Church didn't officially consider early stage abortion as murder until 1859, because before that a soul didn't enter until quickening. So no, abortion wasn't exactly as unacceptable as many think.
Regardless of all that there was no wide spread practice of abortion in this country until late in the 20th century!
-
Regardless of all that there was no wide spread practice of abortion in this country until late in the 20th century!
Point being, that when we talk about how moral our ancestors were in the late 19th and early 19th centuries, we do have to take into consideration abortion, slavery, and lack of women's rights among other such issues that did exist and were acceptable at that time.
Just responding to the concern over how far our original virtues have fallen.
-
I just hope that history repeats and we get another Reaganesque president to follow Bambi...
Carter was also a one-term president that the people turned on after one term, knowing his incompetence.
Today's America, a far different beast, re-elected Obama. Just remember that.
Those responsible for this injustice have ensured this country's eventual demise, and delight, as long as we are brought down with them.
-
Point being, that when we talk about how moral our ancestors were in the late 19th and early 19th centuries, we do have to take into consideration abortion, slavery, and lack of women's rights among other such issues that did exist and were acceptable at that time.
Just responding to the concern over how far our original virtues have fallen.
Slavery was an economic necessity for a time and would have died of natural causes had it been allowed to.
The fact of the mater is that the United States Government could have purchased and freed every single slave in the country at the time for less than the spent on what the did do! Why did they not pursue that avenue?
-
I do not accept the argument that slavery is akin to America's Original Sin.
The social institution of slavery was, in fact a denial of the values upon which this nation was founded ("We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."), stemming from a false belief about the essential humanity of black persons.
Only a small number of American colonists or citizens ever owned slaves, and many more Americans opposed the practice.
And yet I feel safe in proclaiming that none among either of these groups - slave owners and abolitionists - would have willingly countenanced the intentional destruction of unborn children in their mothers' wombs, and would have been properly appalled by it.
Which ought to illustrate just how far from our original virtues we have now fallen.
I understand not every American owned a slave. How many slaves were acceptable in nation built on the foundation that all men are created equal? Those held in bondage were human enough that 3/5ths were considered for legislative purposes. Like most men who sin, it's often a matter of degree.
I'm sure when Franklin or Jefferson or Adams went to Europe they saw black men out of chains and considered to be equal. We can't forget the Irish though. Or the Chinese. I don't give a tinker's damn for any of them.
-
Slavery was an economic necessity for a time and would have died of natural causes had it been allowed to.
The fact of the mater is that the United States Government could have purchased and freed every single slave in the country at the time for less than the spent on what the did do! Why did they not pursue that avenue?
Economic necessities are not necessarily moral apparently. And of course buying the slaves and sending them off to Liberia wouldn't necessarily have settled the issue, since the Constitution would still not have prevented it all over again.
Morality hasn't always been so narrowly defined as some believe.
-
Economic necessities are not necessarily moral apparently. And of course buying the slaves and sending them off to Liberia wouldn't necessarily have settled the issue, since the Constitution would still not have prevented it all over again.
Morality hasn't always been so narrowly defined as some believe.
Isn't there something about the path being narrow but well marked?
-
And of course buying the slaves and sending them off to Liberia wouldn't necessarily have settled the issue, since the Constitution would still not have prevented it all over again.
BS!!! that is a cop out! A deal to end slavery in the U.S. where the government reasonably compensated the owners for the loss of their property could have easily been done! But that isn't what the big boys wanted now is it?
-
BS!!! that is a cop out! A deal to end slavery in the U.S. where the government reasonably compensated the owners for the loss of their property could have easily been done! But that isn't what the big boys wanted now is it?
So when is the last time any promise or deal made that included the government lasted? As for that "deal", if it didn't include a 13th Amendment, it would have lasted until the money was spent. And even if it was proposed, how many southern states would have voted to ratify, especially with all the potential new states in the territories?
-
So when is the last time any promise or deal made that included the government lasted? As for that "deal", if it didn't include a 13th Amendment, it would have lasted until the money was spent. And even if it was proposed, how many southern states would have voted to ratify, especially with all the potential new states in the territories?
I'm not quite a clairvoyant as you seem to think you are but in my view potentially all of them. But we will never know because it wasn't tried.
-
I'm not quite a clairvoyant as you seem to think you are but in my view potentially all of them. But we will never know because it wasn't tried.
It was certainly floated around most quarters at the time, and when Lincoln said he wouldn't try to end slavery if it would save the Union, the South still attacked. Slavery was the basis for their constitution and was mandatory for each confederate state. So that's why the slave states would not have either stayed with the agreement or ratified an amendment to end slavery. And of course, how many agreements with the Indian tribes did the government keep?
Not to mention all of the agreements to rein in spending such as Gramm-Rudman. Best to always assume either party to an agreement involving the government will find a way to shred it sooner or later...so as not to be overly disappointed.
-
Both sides were polarized to the point of no return.
Kind of like....TODAY!
-
It was certainly floated around most quarters at the time, and when Lincoln said he wouldn't try to end slavery if it would save the Union, the South still attacked. Slavery was the basis for their constitution and was mandatory for each confederate state. So that's why the slave states would not have either stayed with the agreement or ratified an amendment to end slavery. And of course, how many agreements with the Indian tribes did the government keep?
Not to mention all of the agreements to rein in spending such as Gramm-Rudman. Best to always assume either party to an agreement involving the government will find a way to shred it sooner or later...so as not to be overly disappointed.
The Roman Catholic church was behind both the Civil War and the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.
-
It was certainly floated around most quarters at the time, and when Lincoln said he wouldn't try to end slavery if it would save the Union, the South still attacked. Slavery was the basis for their constitution and was mandatory for each confederate state. So that's why the slave states would not have either stayed with the agreement or ratified an amendment to end slavery. And of course, how many agreements with the Indian tribes did the government keep?
Not to mention all of the agreements to rein in spending such as Gramm-Rudman. Best to always assume either party to an agreement involving the government will find a way to shred it sooner or later...so as not to be overly disappointed.
ROFLMFAO!!!
Forgive me sir for finding it just a tad tad funny that a man of you obvious cognitive abilities would reason that an agreement arrived at only under force of arms would be more durable than any potential agreement freely agreed to by all parties!
-
Just as abortion stems from a false belief about the essential humanity of the unborn...
No. Women who abort their babies understand it's a baby, they just don't care. All they care about are their own lives. It's just plain, naked selfishness. A baby is inconvenient if it's unplanned (so they tell themselves). So, they flush it away. Problem solved. And few feel remorse.
-
The Roman Catholic church was behind both the Civil War and the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.
That might be an interesting read.
-
ROFLMFAO!!!
Hope you didn't hurt yourself. :laugh:
Forgive me sir for finding it just a tad tad funny that a man of you obvious cognitive abilities would reason that an agreement arrived at only under force of arms would be more durable than any potential agreement freely agreed to by all parties!
Economics my friend. If slavery could have ended with one payment and a handshake, then why didn't South Carolina accept Lincoln's promise not to end slavery if they wouldn't leave the Union? And if slavery wasn't that big an issue, why did they make it mandatory for each confederate state? Seems strange coming from a confederate government that claimed they went to war to preserve freedom.
As to agreements freely entered into by all parties, history has some sad tales, not the least of which was the agreement between Chamberlain and Hitler. How about the agreement by the US, Russia and the UK to preserve the borders of Ukraine if they would just give up their nukes.
-
No. Women who abort their babies understand it's a baby, they just don't care. All they care about are their own lives. It's just plain, naked selfishness. A baby is inconvenient if it's unplanned (so they tell themselves). So, they flush it away. Problem solved. And few feel remorse.
I can't agree with that, AC!
I have to believe that the vast majority of women who choose to abort are...in their minds...voiding tissue mass.
And if said fetus can't survive on its own outside the womb, I would tend to agree with them.
Abortion should be between a woman and her God...and her doctor.
As far as remorse goes, that usually shows up many years later, when they are looking into their child's eyes. What COULD have been.
Personally, I'm pro-life. What Conservative wouldn't be? But that doesn't mean a thing except that it soothes my conscious.
-
Hope you didn't hurt yourself. :laugh:
Economics my friend. If slavery could have ended with one payment and a handshake, then why didn't South Carolina accept Lincoln's promise not to end slavery if they wouldn't leave the Union? And if slavery wasn't that big an issue, why did they make it mandatory for each confederate state? Seems strange coming from a confederate government that claimed they went to war to preserve freedom.
As to agreements freely entered into by all parties, history has some sad tales, not the least of which was the agreement between Chamberlain and Hitler. How about the agreement by the US, Russia and the UK to preserve the borders of Ukraine if they would just give up their nukes.
Well at least you got the economics part right! Lincoln and his Whig supporters (Read Northern industrialists and Communist who had barley escaped Europe after their failed revolutions there in 1848) were DETERMINED to enforce their tariff and to hell with what it did to the country! The wanted WAR and WAR they got and we have lived with and continue to live with the result to this very day!!
-
No. Women who abort their babies understand it's a baby, they just don't care. All they care about are their own lives. It's just plain, naked selfishness. A baby is inconvenient if it's unplanned (so they tell themselves). So, they flush it away. Problem solved. And few feel remorse.
Thirty two years ago, when the hideous Roe v Wade passed, I think there were many women who believed the lie that their baby wasn't a baby, but now, I completely agree. Women know they are killing their child, and choose to do so anyway.
And you are also right that the majority do it for convenience (that includes financial convenience).
Where I disagree is your statement that "few feel remorse." Most don't admit it publicly, but I believe that all but the conscience-seared feel remorse. There is a lot of Christian counseling dealing with women who very much feel guilt (true guilt) that they flushed their babies down the toilet. They thought they had solved their problem, but in dealing with the emotional, physical and psychological repercussions, they find out otherwise.
They've created a problem far worse.
-
Well at least you got the economics part right! Lincoln and his Whig supporters (Read Northern industrialists and Communist who had barley escaped Europe after their failed revolutions there in 1848) were DETERMINED to enforce their tariff and to hell with what it did to the country! The wanted WAR and WAR they got and we have lived with and continue to live with the result to this very day!!
Many in the South today still believe the war wasn't about slavery in spite of the Confederate constitution. But people still believe the Earth is only 6000 years old too. So I guess some things just have to be left to faith.
-
Many in the South today still believe the war wasn't about slavery in spite of the Confederate constitution. But people still believe the Earth is only 6000 years old too. So I guess some things just have to be left to faith.
No one her is saying that slavery was not a big factor in the run up to the War of Northern Aggression because it most certainly was! But the BIG reason was enforcement of the tariff!
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
John Adams
Mr. Adams was right about that!
-
No one her is saying that slavery was not a big factor in the run up to the War of Northern Aggression because it most certainly was! But the BIG reason was enforcement of the tariff!
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
John Adams
Mr. Adams was right about that!
Even here in South Carolina, the state that started the conflict, I don't often hear that phrase "War of Northern Aggression". Nevertheless, on December 20, 1960, shortly after Lincoln won election, South Carolina seceded from the Union under the guise of the "Confederate States of America", and gave its reasons in the declaration. The entire reason given was slavery and how ownership of the property of the slave states was being endangered by the federal government.
Lincoln's absolute promise not to interfere with the slaveholding states didn't convince the new "confederacy", as they knew that admission of new free states would ultimately give Congress the votes to end slavery. And slavery is what made the slave states rich.
BTW, John Adams, while not associated with radical abolitionists, was adamantly opposed to slavery.
-
Even here in South Carolina, the state that started the conflict, I don't often hear that phrase "War of Northern Aggression".
Lincoln's absolute promise not to interfere with the slaveholding states didn't convince the new "confederacy", as they knew that admission of new free states would ultimately give Congress the votes to end slavery. And slavery is what made the slave states rich.
BTW, John Adams, while not associated with radical abolitionists, was adamantly opposed to slavery.
I call them as I see them and the War of Northern aggression is as good a title as I can come up with based on the FACTS!
Lincoln didn't care about anything but his precious tariff and he was determined to collect it!
Lots of people were opposed to slavery! Many of them happened to be southerners and none of that has a darned thing to do with what Adams said in the quote I posted above.
-
I call them as I see them and the War of Northern aggression is as good a title as I can come up with based on the FACTS!
Lincoln didn't care about anything but his precious tariff and he was determined to collect it!
Lots of people were opposed to slavery! Many of them happened to be southerners and none of that has a darned thing to do with what Adams said in the quote I posted above.
Funny SC never mentioned anything about the tariff in their "declaration of independence" when they seceded. Certainly the tariff didn't help matters, but the movement that brought secession to the southern states was well on its way long before that tariff was signed into law. And didn't the Confederacy finance itself through tariffs?
BTW, wasn't putting down your Adams quote. Just thought quoting Adams a tad ironic given the discussion.
-
Here's another quote for you!
"The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty".
Karl Marx, 1861
Even he could see the truth!
-
Here's another quote for you!
"The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty".
Karl Marx, 1861
Even he could see the truth!
Well if you can't believe Karl Marx, who can you believe? :thud:
-
Here is an interesting article which argues that tariffs were at the heart of the original conflict:
Protective Tariffs: The Primary Cause of the Civil War (http://www.marottaonmoney.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/)
As for me, I have always held that while slavery was at the center of the conflict. In truth, it was one of many.
The "liberal" North resented the (relatively speaking, few) prosperous landowners of the South - which was exacerbated by knowing that the individual prosperity was borne from slave labor. Everyone knew intuitively, intellectually that the peculiar institution could not, would not survive in perpetuity.
Meanwhile, the South seethed over the manufacturing prowess of the North - and they felt they paid too much for the goods from the North.
If slavery was not the full cause of the War, it was certainly what sustained it. By the time of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, it WAS the War. It was the War of a way of life. One that needed to die but refused to do so.
-
Darn, I wish this thread hadn't veered onto a discussion of the Civil War instead of what Buchanan wrote.
-
Darn, I wish this thread hadn't veered onto a discussion of the Civil War instead of what Buchanan wrote.
Good point mountaineer! Good point! I'm back on track!
Buchanan is right - in so many respects, we are but a shell of what we once were.
-
Well if you can't believe Karl Marx, who can you believe? :thud:
Truth is truth regardless!
-
Truth is truth regardless!
LOL. Someone told me recently here that if I agreed with Obama on anything that proved I was a liberal. :tongue2:
-
LOL. Someone told me recently here that if I agreed with Obama on anything that proved I was a liberal. :tongue2:
Wasn't me! :tongue2:
Although I can't recall a thing Obama has said that I would agree with but I'm sure he may have said something somewhere that I'm unaware of that I might agree with.
-
Here is an interesting article which argues that tariffs were at the heart of the original conflict:
Protective Tariffs: The Primary Cause of the Civil War (http://www.marottaonmoney.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/)
As for me, I have always held that while slavery was at the center of the conflict. In truth, it was one of many.
The "liberal" North resented the (relatively speaking, few) prosperous landowners of the South - which was exacerbated by knowing that the individual prosperity was borne from slave labor. Everyone knew intuitively, intellectually that the peculiar institution could not, would not survive in perpetuity.
Meanwhile, the South seethed over the manufacturing prowess of the North - and they felt they paid too much for the goods from the North.
If slavery was not the full cause of the War, it was certainly what sustained it. By the time of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, it WAS the War. It was the War of a way of life. One that needed to die but refused to do so.
Excellent article Lando!
Thanks for posting it.
-
Excellent article Lando!
Thanks for posting it.
I wish I would proofread my writing better.
-
I wish I would proofread my writing better.
Lando, I had a response all written up, but when someone said we were off track, I didn't post it. Maybe another time. Don't want to hijack the thread...but it's so tempting. :pondering:
-
Lando, I had a response all written up, but when someone said we were off track, I didn't post it. Maybe another time. Don't want to hijack the thread...but it's so tempting. :pondering:
Dang MAC... I always enjoy and learn from your posts. We were guilty of thread hijacking, tho. Maybe a new thread?
-
Dang MAC... I always enjoy and learn from your posts. We were guilty of thread hijacking, tho. Maybe a new thread?
You're too kind Lando, but yeah this wasn't the right thread. One will be along we can jump into and do a little wrestling. The debate hasn't died in 150+ years, lol.
-
Thirty two years ago, when the hideous Roe v Wade passed, I think there were many women who believed the lie that their baby wasn't a baby, but now, I completely agree. Women know they are killing their child, and choose to do so anyway.
And you are also right that the majority do it for convenience (that includes financial convenience).
Where I disagree is your statement that "few feel remorse." Most don't admit it publicly, but I believe that all but the conscience-seared feel remorse. There is a lot of Christian counseling dealing with women who very much feel guilt (true guilt) that they flushed their babies down the toilet. They thought they had solved their problem, but in dealing with the emotional, physical and psychological repercussions, they find out otherwise.
They've created a problem far worse.
I'm humbled by your well presented counterpoint. And sadly it probably reflects the truth of what many women experience after making such a desperate, horrible decision.
-
That might be an interesting read.
The Lincoln thing was the easy part, I think something like 7 out of 9 conspirators were Catholic. The Civil War? Think about the only country on the Americas that was not under some sort of control of the Roman Catholic church. Even Quebec, as Canada had not formed some independent status until 1869.
-
Thread hijacking is not a mortal sin. Sorry, didn't mean to come off like a scold! :beer:
Although I can't recall a thing Obama has said that I would agree with but I'm sure he may have said something somewhere that I'm unaware of that I might agree with.
Bigun, if Barry O. said it was a good day for golf, I'd still check the forecast for myself!
-
The Lincoln thing was the easy part, I think something like 7 out of 9 conspirators were Catholic. The Civil War? Think about the only country on the Americas that was not under some sort of control of the Roman Catholic church. Even Quebec, as Canada had not formed some independent status until 1869.
Well, I did do a little reading on the subject, and yes, several of the conspirators were Catholic, though the actual assassin was said to be less than strong in his beliefs, and may not have even been a Catholic. I couldn't find any actual ties to the Jesuits, just conjecture. There are several theories out there along with the Catholic one, so like Kennedy, it will probably remain fodder for the theorists.
-
Thread hijacking is not a mortal sin. Sorry, didn't mean to come off like a scold! :beer:
Nonsense. It was a nicely worded reminder. :beer:
-
Nonsense. It was a nicely worded reminder. :beer:
I absolutely agree!
-
Thread hijacking is not a mortal sin. Sorry, didn't mean to come off like a scold! :beer:
Bigun, if Barry O. said it was a good day for golf, I'd still check the forecast for myself!
AMEN!!!