Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Why Demote Lincoln?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 486131" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>Ah the Southern Avenger!</p><p></p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":wink2:" title="Wink :wink2:" data-shortname=":wink2:" /></p><p></p><p>D,</p><p></p><p>You're so right, we couldn't have a divided nation and thus under this pretext we moved forward and destroyed the once independent nations of the native americans.</p><p></p><p>I guess this also means for example you will sit there and justify the events of 12/29/1890' at Wounded Knee South Dakota as necessary in order to maintain an "undivided" nation? How dare we consider the 1973' events of Wounded Knee as a consequence of the 1890' events. That's 80 years ago, people need to stop thinking in the past for pete's sake. I hope for Pete's sake we never stop!</p><p></p><p>Tell you what, net search the following:</p><p></p><p>"People of the Six Nations"</p><p></p><p>Iroquios Democracy</p><p></p><p>Charles Thomson of Delaware and the events of June 11, 1776'</p><p></p><p>After you get done looking a bit, rethink how you go about defending the necessity of the great American empire!</p><p></p><p>BTW: If anyone has illusions that had the confederacy won, some southern utopia of freedom and greatness would be with us today? Think again. As a born and raised southerner with a long southern heritage going back to the late 1600's, I'm sad to say I'm not convinced of that at all!</p><p></p><p>Also D, Germany and the Nazi version you made reference too was very much brought about by American actions in WW1 and post WW1 events. Take out the empirical self interests of the allied powers with repsect to Versailles and most historians agree the growth medium for Hilter is not there to begin with. WW1 was IMO the results of dying empirical colonial powers in their death days trying desperately to maintain their own empires. American entry only stood to prop up the dying Anglo empire with fresh blood on the same order as Bush/Obama using taxpayer supplied capitial to prop up the economic bubble that burst to put us where we are. Like the colonial empires of old, so do we now find ourselves faced with that same reality of lost standing and dominance as our means to pay for it has crashed into the wall of economic reality.</p><p></p><p>Also take out the empirical self intersts of the allied powers and the growth medium for the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood</a></p><p></p><p>in the 1920's is not there and thus radical islamic ideals has no medium from which to build on. Also Iran is no problem because Persia and self rule would exist and therefore no need for radicalism especially towards America because the events to forment the hostility would most likely have never happened. It's also very easy to say Saddam Hussein would be an unknown history as Iraq would have never been either as without WW2 we would have no CIA to forment global meddling and various coup d'etat's making new enemies to funnel billions of taxpayer productivity from the wealth creation side of the economy into the corp. military industrial complex and the merchantile state creation side of the economiy. This in turn, creates wealth shortage amongst the people and forments a growing welfare class that in turn the State can use as a crisis to forment an ever growing state among us.</p><p></p><p>And yes, it may be equally safe to say without WW1 and WW2, the conflict between muslim and jew would not be happening as also the destruction of 6 million jews would have never happened either thus formenting fear and allowing zionist manipulation of that fear to drive jews from among European populations. It also didn't hurt that the state used religion (christianity) to also make jews at many turns a scape goat for what otherwise was caused by the state and in some cases, the state church as well.</p><p></p><p>One might also say as necessity being the mother of invention, that without WW1 and WW2, the landscape of dangerous weapons across the planet might look very different. WW1 brought the need for chemical weapons and led to research in biological agents and of course WW2 brought us the infamous nuclear bomb. We scream in fear about the muslim and his so-called appetite for dirty nukes or chemical or biological agents or in some case his outright desire for nuclear weapons. Who created these monsters to begin with? Using their context of necessity, what events brought these into being in the first place? And then what caused these "events" to come about making for such a necessity? Ironically, the Soviet Union and the rise of communism came as much about by the events of WW1 as by any other means sp again, WW1 lays another unintended consequence that over the next 6 or 7 decades has a tremendous effect on millions if not billions of lives across the planet. If we as individuals percieve the criminal element as an aggressive violent force and in a means to protect ourselves from them, we acquire the best in personal firearms to do this and we consider an affront if gov't dare try and impose to take our right from us to do this. Taking this to the level of nations, should we therefore insist this same right in face of realities of military might be stripped of other nations? If we argue for weapons control on the level of nations based on the fact we contend they will be misused against society, are we not accepting the argument of the anti-gun forces in American and therefore making their arguement for them? Ashame they aren't bright enough to take this point and turn it on the pro-war, pro-aggression anti gun control types and exposed them for their own hypocrisy!</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/surprised.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":surprised:" title="Surprised :surprised:" data-shortname=":surprised:" /></p><p></p><p>The right of self defense is an unalienable right that spans across the human specie and not just the american version!</p><p></p><p>Looking at our own history of manifest destiny in relation to the native American, it doesn't take much imagination to transpose the middle east muslim into the place of the native american on the 20th century global scale and understand where the actions of the 19th century were the seedbed so to speak of a coming global manifest destiny. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre</a> (FYI, article is in dispute) in truth turns out to be a harbinger of bad things to come if one can open their mind. And thus so was Lincoln!</p><p></p><p>The so-called Civil War, was not about slavery and in truth used slavery after the fact, and in a post war means to elevate the era into the mythical parthenon to justify the goodness if not the Godhead of statecraft. It's ironic that Lincoln's mythmakers glorify Lincoln's so'called freeing of the Slaves to then turn around and across society make them at best 2nd class citizens. Even during the days of segregation, I clearly remember the native american or even the Asian sitting in the downstairs of the movie theater while the African American was relegated to the upstairs balconey. As our founding fathers had their hypocrisy, so too does your "undivided" nation have as well. Sadly, what does this really say about us as we make up this nation to begin with? Don't you just hate it when I point out the obvious!<img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy-very.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy-very:" title="Happy Very :happy-very:" data-shortname=":happy-very:" /> I hate myself too sometimes.</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy-very.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy-very:" title="Happy Very :happy-very:" data-shortname=":happy-very:" /><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy-very.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy-very:" title="Happy Very :happy-very:" data-shortname=":happy-very:" /><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy-very.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy-very:" title="Happy Very :happy-very:" data-shortname=":happy-very:" /></p><p></p><p>The war was really about economics if truth be told and it rarely is. Just as Bush used lies to forment his own war of legacy, so too has Lincoln and the Court historicains who champion the supreme state. It's historically ironic for me that John Wilkes Booth presents a very troubling duality so to speak. On the one hand, Booth murdering Lincoln mostly assured the murderous and evil period of reconstruction on the south in the post war years that actually led to much of the anti-african american sentiment in the south. Even many southern anti Lincolnites would admit that reconstruction of the south was not what Lincoln ever had in mind at all and Booth's murderous act in Ford's theater set the table for it all.</p><p></p><p>On the other hand, had Booth been 4 years earlier so to speak and looking across the universe of time, how would our nation be different and for that fact our world be different today? History might suggest Booth was 4 years to late from a certain historical POV. The question is only one but with 1000's of potential answers but then I often ask myself the same thing in what if Kennedy's driver had pretended to be Jeff Gordon going through Dealy Plaza. We'll just never know!</p><p></p><p>At the same time, had the founding fathers lived up to the classical liberal ideals found in the declaration of independence and not been cowards regarding slavery and the native peoples when it came time to writting the Constitution, history might be vastly different even for our nation of people and the circumstances of the 1860's might have been avoided all together. Their own lack of action brought about the unintended consequences of Lincoln. As much as I admire many of the founders, they were not without their hypocrisy either but then, name one human who's walked the planet who hasn't battled this troubling part of our very nature?</p><p></p><p>To us, it may seem that not allowing a divided nation was a necessary evil if you will but using those actions in a context of setting up unintended consequences, the rest of the world may argue justly from their POV that a divided America would have been in the longterm interests and better historical outcome for the rest of the world!</p><p></p><p>It's all in perspective my friend, all in perspective!</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/peaceful.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":peaceful:" title="Peaceful :peaceful:" data-shortname=":peaceful:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 486131, member: 2189"] Ah the Southern Avenger! :wink2: D, You're so right, we couldn't have a divided nation and thus under this pretext we moved forward and destroyed the once independent nations of the native americans. I guess this also means for example you will sit there and justify the events of 12/29/1890' at Wounded Knee South Dakota as necessary in order to maintain an "undivided" nation? How dare we consider the 1973' events of Wounded Knee as a consequence of the 1890' events. That's 80 years ago, people need to stop thinking in the past for pete's sake. I hope for Pete's sake we never stop! Tell you what, net search the following: "People of the Six Nations" Iroquios Democracy Charles Thomson of Delaware and the events of June 11, 1776' After you get done looking a bit, rethink how you go about defending the necessity of the great American empire! BTW: If anyone has illusions that had the confederacy won, some southern utopia of freedom and greatness would be with us today? Think again. As a born and raised southerner with a long southern heritage going back to the late 1600's, I'm sad to say I'm not convinced of that at all! Also D, Germany and the Nazi version you made reference too was very much brought about by American actions in WW1 and post WW1 events. Take out the empirical self interests of the allied powers with repsect to Versailles and most historians agree the growth medium for Hilter is not there to begin with. WW1 was IMO the results of dying empirical colonial powers in their death days trying desperately to maintain their own empires. American entry only stood to prop up the dying Anglo empire with fresh blood on the same order as Bush/Obama using taxpayer supplied capitial to prop up the economic bubble that burst to put us where we are. Like the colonial empires of old, so do we now find ourselves faced with that same reality of lost standing and dominance as our means to pay for it has crashed into the wall of economic reality. Also take out the empirical self intersts of the allied powers and the growth medium for the [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood[/URL] in the 1920's is not there and thus radical islamic ideals has no medium from which to build on. Also Iran is no problem because Persia and self rule would exist and therefore no need for radicalism especially towards America because the events to forment the hostility would most likely have never happened. It's also very easy to say Saddam Hussein would be an unknown history as Iraq would have never been either as without WW2 we would have no CIA to forment global meddling and various coup d'etat's making new enemies to funnel billions of taxpayer productivity from the wealth creation side of the economy into the corp. military industrial complex and the merchantile state creation side of the economiy. This in turn, creates wealth shortage amongst the people and forments a growing welfare class that in turn the State can use as a crisis to forment an ever growing state among us. And yes, it may be equally safe to say without WW1 and WW2, the conflict between muslim and jew would not be happening as also the destruction of 6 million jews would have never happened either thus formenting fear and allowing zionist manipulation of that fear to drive jews from among European populations. It also didn't hurt that the state used religion (christianity) to also make jews at many turns a scape goat for what otherwise was caused by the state and in some cases, the state church as well. One might also say as necessity being the mother of invention, that without WW1 and WW2, the landscape of dangerous weapons across the planet might look very different. WW1 brought the need for chemical weapons and led to research in biological agents and of course WW2 brought us the infamous nuclear bomb. We scream in fear about the muslim and his so-called appetite for dirty nukes or chemical or biological agents or in some case his outright desire for nuclear weapons. Who created these monsters to begin with? Using their context of necessity, what events brought these into being in the first place? And then what caused these "events" to come about making for such a necessity? Ironically, the Soviet Union and the rise of communism came as much about by the events of WW1 as by any other means sp again, WW1 lays another unintended consequence that over the next 6 or 7 decades has a tremendous effect on millions if not billions of lives across the planet. If we as individuals percieve the criminal element as an aggressive violent force and in a means to protect ourselves from them, we acquire the best in personal firearms to do this and we consider an affront if gov't dare try and impose to take our right from us to do this. Taking this to the level of nations, should we therefore insist this same right in face of realities of military might be stripped of other nations? If we argue for weapons control on the level of nations based on the fact we contend they will be misused against society, are we not accepting the argument of the anti-gun forces in American and therefore making their arguement for them? Ashame they aren't bright enough to take this point and turn it on the pro-war, pro-aggression anti gun control types and exposed them for their own hypocrisy! :surprised: The right of self defense is an unalienable right that spans across the human specie and not just the american version! Looking at our own history of manifest destiny in relation to the native American, it doesn't take much imagination to transpose the middle east muslim into the place of the native american on the 20th century global scale and understand where the actions of the 19th century were the seedbed so to speak of a coming global manifest destiny. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre[/URL] (FYI, article is in dispute) in truth turns out to be a harbinger of bad things to come if one can open their mind. And thus so was Lincoln! The so-called Civil War, was not about slavery and in truth used slavery after the fact, and in a post war means to elevate the era into the mythical parthenon to justify the goodness if not the Godhead of statecraft. It's ironic that Lincoln's mythmakers glorify Lincoln's so'called freeing of the Slaves to then turn around and across society make them at best 2nd class citizens. Even during the days of segregation, I clearly remember the native american or even the Asian sitting in the downstairs of the movie theater while the African American was relegated to the upstairs balconey. As our founding fathers had their hypocrisy, so too does your "undivided" nation have as well. Sadly, what does this really say about us as we make up this nation to begin with? Don't you just hate it when I point out the obvious!:happy-very: I hate myself too sometimes. :happy-very::happy-very::happy-very: The war was really about economics if truth be told and it rarely is. Just as Bush used lies to forment his own war of legacy, so too has Lincoln and the Court historicains who champion the supreme state. It's historically ironic for me that John Wilkes Booth presents a very troubling duality so to speak. On the one hand, Booth murdering Lincoln mostly assured the murderous and evil period of reconstruction on the south in the post war years that actually led to much of the anti-african american sentiment in the south. Even many southern anti Lincolnites would admit that reconstruction of the south was not what Lincoln ever had in mind at all and Booth's murderous act in Ford's theater set the table for it all. On the other hand, had Booth been 4 years earlier so to speak and looking across the universe of time, how would our nation be different and for that fact our world be different today? History might suggest Booth was 4 years to late from a certain historical POV. The question is only one but with 1000's of potential answers but then I often ask myself the same thing in what if Kennedy's driver had pretended to be Jeff Gordon going through Dealy Plaza. We'll just never know! At the same time, had the founding fathers lived up to the classical liberal ideals found in the declaration of independence and not been cowards regarding slavery and the native peoples when it came time to writting the Constitution, history might be vastly different even for our nation of people and the circumstances of the 1860's might have been avoided all together. Their own lack of action brought about the unintended consequences of Lincoln. As much as I admire many of the founders, they were not without their hypocrisy either but then, name one human who's walked the planet who hasn't battled this troubling part of our very nature? To us, it may seem that not allowing a divided nation was a necessary evil if you will but using those actions in a context of setting up unintended consequences, the rest of the world may argue justly from their POV that a divided America would have been in the longterm interests and better historical outcome for the rest of the world! It's all in perspective my friend, all in perspective! :peaceful: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Why Demote Lincoln?
Top