-
Website
http://sayanythingblog.com/ -
Original page
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/my_daddy_died_in_iraq_essay_by_six_year_old_a_lie_endorsed_by_her_mother -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
What's wrong with you?
Please answer. We will response back. We know that it is only a matter of time before you Google your own name and read this. What do you have to say for yourself?
I hate to politicize the subject (although...not enough not to do it...:D ), but I can't help but wonder what effect women like Hillary Clinton have on these people. She's the epitome of "do whatever it takes" for personal gain yet a large segment of the country wants her as POTUS.
Yep, it's Hillary's fault. I was wondering how long it would take for someone to blame Hillary for someone else's lies. Hillary is a phony, pandering, lying corporate whore, but then so is Romney, Guliani, Bush, Cheney, and 90% of the Republicans in congress. Let's just blame everyone (except the mother) for the child lying.
"Get off knees, bitch, you have a family to raise."
Pat Tillman
Jessica Lynch
Pat Tillman
Jessica Lynch
Ah, you are saying the Republican Party, their elected officials and candidates knew the military was lying in these cases and knowingly fostered the lie? If you cannot prove they knew the facts were different than reported, you have knowingly misrespresented the truth.
<img border="0" src="http://aycu40.webshots.com/image/40239/2001145201857140599_rs.jpg" alt="Free Image Hosting at allyoucanupload.com"/>
This was never about her daughter. It's all about her.
Plus, the mother forgot about MySpace and public records..
http://www.michaelcrook.org/blog/2007/12/29/tex...
Secondly Nieman:
[quote]Ah, you are saying the Republican Party, their elected officials and candidates knew the military was lying in these cases and knowingly fostered the lie?[/quote]
Yep.
[quote][url=http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/2005-05-04-tillman-investigation_x.htm]Report: Army knew Tillman died from friendly fire[/url]
A new Army report shows that Gen. John P. Abizaid, the theater commander in Afghanistan, and other top Army officials were aware an investigation had determined the death was caused by an act of "gross negligence" four days before a nationally televised memorial service, the Post reported after reviewing nearly 2,000 pages of documents it had obtained. [/quote]
[quote]Here is the declassified memo:
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_doc...
[quote][url=http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/24/tillman.hearing/index.html]More?[/url][/quote]
[quote][url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/foreigndesk/detail?blogid=16&entry_id=14912]More?[/url][/quote]
The Tillman hearing and the Lynch hearing were both on CSAN. Google the transcripts if you want more.
- Staff Sgt. Cardenas J. Alban, convicted of killing a severely wounded 16-year-old Iraqi during fighting in Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood. He was sentenced to one year's confinement, demoted to private and given a bad-conduct discharge.
- Staff Sgt. Johnny Horne Jr., pleaded guilty to unpremeditated murder in the same case as Alban. He was sentenced to three years in prison, had his rank reduced to private, forfeited wages and was given a dishonorable discharge. His prison sentence was later reduced to one year.
- Cpl. Dustin Berg of the Indiana National Guard, convicted and sentenced to serve 18 months in prison for the shooting death of an Iraqi police officer.
- Spc. Rami Dajani, convicted of making a false statement following the fatal shooting of an Iraqi translator. He was sentenced to 18 months' confinement and given a reduction in rank and bad-conduct discharge.
- Spc. Charley L. Hooser, convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the same case involving Dajani. Hooser was sentenced to three years in prison and given a reduction in rank and bad-conduct discharge.
- Capt. Rogelio "Roger" Maynulet, convicted of assault with intent to commit voluntary manslaughter in the shooting death of a wounded Iraqi. He got no prison time but was dismissed from the armed forces.
- Pvt. Federico Daniel Merida of the North Carolina National Guard, pleaded guilty to killing a 17-year-old Iraqi soldier after the two had consensual sex. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison, given a reduction in rank and dishonorably discharged.
- Marine Maj. Clarke Paulus, convicted of dereliction of duty and maltreatment in a case stemming from the death of an Iraqi prisoner who was dragged out of his holding cell by the neck, stripped naked and left outside for seven hours in 2003. Paulus, who commanded a Marine detention camp in Iraq, was dismissed from the service but received no prison time.
- Sgt. 1st Class Tracy Perkins, acquitted of involuntary manslaughter in the alleged drowning of an Iraqi man but convicted of assault for forcing the man and his cousin into the Tigris River. He was sentenced to six months in prison.
- 1st Lt. Jack Saville, pleaded guilty to assault and other crimes in the same incident as Perkins and was sentenced to 45 days in prison.
- Pfc. Edward Richmond, convicted of voluntary manslaughter for shooting an Iraqi in the back of the head. He received three years in prison.
- Sgt. Michael P. Williams, convicted one premeditated murder and unpremeditated murder in the deaths of unarmed civilians during operations near Sadr City. He was sentenced to life in prison and given a reduction in rank. His sentence was later reduced to 25 years.
- Spc. Brent May, convicted of unpremeditated murder in the same incident as Williams. He was sentenced to five years.
- Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, found guilty of negligent homicide and negligent dereliction of duty in the death of Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush after interrogation at a detention camp. A military jury ordered a reprimand and forfeiture of $6,000 of his salary, and restricted him to his home, office and church for two months.[/quote]
[quote][url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/04/AR2007080400236.html]Soldier Gets 110 Years in Rape-Slay Case[/url][/quote]
[quote][url=http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/10/iraq.soldier/index.html]GI pleads guilty to murdering Iraqi teen[/url][/quote]
Now please pay attention: [b]I DID NOT[/b] say that some in the military were not aware that the story told to the parents and the American public was a lie, did I? [b]I DID NOT[/b] say that after the matter was finally disclosed that there were not hearings and then everyone knew that a cover story had been promoted by the military, did I? By the way, just for the record, I do not believe there were any selfish or mean spirited motives involved, it was an honest error by people that wanted to spare the family unnecessary pain and to preserve the heroic image of Tilman, as he left such a high paying career to defend America.
I asked you if the Republican Party, candidates, elected officials and while I did not ask it, if the President had [u]foreknowledge[/u] that the false cover story was concocted by a few people, before it became common knowledge. Please give us exact, objective, documented information that any or all of these people were told about it before it became common knowledge that military lied. If you cannot, you having consciously, knowingly spread information negative to the Republican Party and the President for selfish partisan reasons. I could be wrong, so please put up facts or stop your deceptive practices.
By your including a list of the offenses by the Military in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, it was another case of your trying to decieve others by omitting critical information, in this case the comparative data on such incidences in other American wars. The military is a microcosm of America and so there will always be criminal acts by the few, it is inevitable. But, you meant to use this data only to smear our brave men and women in uniform and the only reason I can think of for why you or any American would do something so dastardly is because you are [i]probably[/i] another America hating, military hating Leftist, an extreme partisan or you are absent any common decency. You may choose which!
But I am not surprised.
You are after all a strict devotee of Gumbyism.
Are you accusing the corporately owned MSM of fabricating the convictions of these soldiers, because that would be quite a coup. You called them - [i]"allegations of "cold-blooded murder[/i]". I showed you that there were in fact actual convictions.
I am proud of our country when we adhere to the rule of law. Why not join me and support America for once in you life.
Exposing your rightie smears and non-truths is not hating, it is truth telling.
Wipe yourself Gumby, your own hate is dribbling down on to your white coat.
God Bless America
Why do you hate her so much?
Neiman, the declassified memo -- you read it, right? -- and the hearings- and the testimony of the soldier and the families and the pols, you googled them and read that too, right?
The inclusion of military convictions was meant in no way to smear them, but to help poor r-Gumby get a grip on what has actually happened. He feigns: bla bla leftie smears bla lies bla bla outright fabrications bla, without acknowledging the actual facts of the numerous military convictions. Tell the truth now Neiman, did you know about all these convictions? Sad as the facts may be, it is [b]THE TRUTH. [/b]
"allegations of "cold-blooded murder". [b]Those allegations were made by the leftie liar John Murtha about our troops in Haditha.[/b] I showed you that there were in fact actual convictions. [b]As usual, you lie by omission. What about the over 100,000 soldiers in Iraq who haven't been convicted of anything, but rather are doing an heroic job for their country, unlike what you are doing?[/b][/quote]
Shame on you!
I am getting ready to leave and don't have time to read them now. Are you asserting that these memos disclose as an objective fact that The Republican Party, their candidates and elected officials in a substantial number knew all about the false cover story before the rest of America? Please leave me a direct quote to that effect and I'll go to that document, or admit that perhaps your accusations against them all were painting with too far broad a brush and more than a little partisan partisan.
I am glad these people were investigated and convicted, if guilty, but I'll add two things: (1) The Left has made things into criminal conduct by the military that never were, solely out of their hatred for the military and desire to destroy and/or make wholly impotent our military. (2) Yes, I knew many convictions were made and yet, I haven't had the time to investigate whether or not the charges were based on facts or not. Like I said, if they do wrong they must be punished, but it is such a small fraction of our military as to be statistically insignificant and only reflects our population and human condition as a whole.
I unconditionally support our military because I served in the Marine Crops, in war, and I have a personal stake in this war. If they really screw up, they must answer for their misdeeds, otherwise I will not tolerate the constant, largely unwarranted criticism by the Left just out of hate for our wonderful fighting men and women.
It would be good for you to read for yourself the testimony of Kevin Tillman and everyone else that was empanelled that day and settle in your own mind what they and others have said.
[u]Extreme Home Makeover[/u] is a great example of this. Everyone gets all teary eyed and thinks the network is just the greatest and most generous ever. Truth is the network is in business and because the show is much watched, the advertisers line up with the big bucks. Again, nothing wrong with it and it is "good" business.
However, the networks don't mind everyone thinking that what they're doing is charity. They don't advertise that their decision is a business decision and a profitable one at that.
Everyone benefits; it's charity for the people who get a free house, and business for the TV program that enables the free house. People have jobs and make money from this. Why is that a problem for you?
You're talking about Scooter, right?
I was referring to the the era from 1968-1991 in the US military when "certain people" were given "passes" for bad behavior. These indulgences also occurred in public education from around 1968 until the present. I was there. Stop your political games. We are at war.
But ‘68-'91, huh.
Oh, you mean, Caspar Weinberger, Elliott Abrams, Robert McFarlane, Duane Clarridge, Alan Fiers, Clair George and Oliver North?
Scooter was convicted of 4 felonies and was his sentence commuted.
But ‘68-'91, huh.
Oh, you mean, Caspar Weinberger, Elliott Abrams, Robert McFarlane, Duane Clarridge, Alan Fiers, Clair George and Oliver North?
Yeah those traitors got away with some bad stuff.
I know what you mean, Chief "certain people" sure got out of jail for free, didn't they.
He's blathering again.
After the criminal persecution by Fitz, after he knew who the real leaker was all the time. Justice would demand a conviction of Fitz.
[quote]This was never about her daughter. It's all about her.[/quote]
I'm going all retro on you again. How did we ever get here? Would this have happened 50 years ago when I was 13? I don't think so. Society has deteriorated.
Shame is at least some retribution. Thanks for posting her picture. I hope all of blogdom picks this up. I'll hang it on the wall for dart practice.
Only in a few places in the Deep South. The Civil Rights Act was passed 53 years ago. Typical leftie propaganda.
[/quote]The Civil Rights Act of 1954???
I can see that math was not your strong suit, but than again, neither is history.
He's good like dat.
Sorry r-Gumby, I just can't let you stretch on this one
Fitz -- a republican, appointed by republican John Ashcroft
[url=http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/the_man_who_sentence_irving_libby/]Judge Walton[/url] -- appointed by W himself, POTUS Chief Roberts appointed him to FISA -- Rehnquist had appointed him to Law Committee -- Raygun and GWH bush appointed him to the DC court -- GWH bush had him in other executive office gigs --
[quote][url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/us/05cnd-libby.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin]Judge Walton[/url], who presided over the trial that ended in March with Mr. Libby's conviction on four felony counts, said the evidence was overwhelming that Mr. Libby had obstructed justice and lied to a grand jury and F.B.I. agents investigating the disclosure of the identity of a Central Intelligence Agency operative, Valerie Wilson. [/quote]
May I suggest moving on to another vineyard, because the grapes you're eating -- they are just way too sour.
Your identity politics doesn't explain why Fitz ignored the fact that Armitage was the leaker, and why he wrongly went after the President, Vice President and Karl Rove; he only settled on Libby with the perjury trap when he failed to get his real targets. For you, partisan identity politics is everything, but you lie, as usual. Deal with the facts, not your personal hate fantasies, kiddie cartoon character boy.
Fitz persecuted Libby, and you know it. Unless your hate has made you so stupid that you can't understand simple facts.
[quote]May 17th(1954)
[b]The Supreme Court decides Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) (Brown I), declaring that racial segregation in public schools violates the Equal Protection Clause.[/b] The same day, it holds that racial segregation in the District of Columbia public schools violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment in Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954).[/quote]
1954 - The beginning of the end of racial segregation in the United States. Done by Republicans over the opposition of Southern Democrats, also known as Dixiecrats. The Dems were the Party of segregation, while the Republican Party, founded to end slavery, consistently worked to end segregation. Fact.
Lestat: Your mischaracterization of the US as a generally segregated country is just flat wrong. It was only in a Democrat-controlled region of the US that segregation even existed over 50 years ago.
Irving was the key to the real targets, he...what did the Republican Judge say... oh yeah - the evidence was overwhelming that Mr. Libby had obstructed justice and lied to a grand jury and F.B.I. agents investigating the disclosure of the identity of a Central Intelligence Agency operative, Valerie Wilson.
Had Irving not obstructed justice, (sand if the face of the umpire) justice might have led the republican appointed republican prosecutor to the magic list of names you so kindly provide.
But r-Gumby, this Dixiecrat thing you speak of intrigues me.
Can you give us the names of some prominent Dixiecrats and to which party they claim allegiance to today?
Wasn't there a thing called "Southern Strategy".
Oh please r-Gumby won't you tell us more?
The Dixiecrats are a fact of history. They were Democrats who resisted the Civil Rights movement. One of them was Al Gore's father.
None of them are presently for segregation, because some of them have become Republicans, the Party of freedom and racial equality.
I understand you lefties hate them as much as you hate the Jews who have left your fascist plantation.
[quote]Why was Armitage never called to testify?
[/quote] Because Armitage knew nothing about how Libby lied to Fitz.
[quote]Dixiecrat
In the U.S., member of a right-wing Democratic splinter group in the 1948 election. Organized by Southerners who objected to the Democrats' civil rights program, the Dixiecrats met in Birmingham, Ala., and nominated Gov. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina for president. He received more than one million votes in the 1948 election and won four states.
Dixiecrat Party
In 1948, the Democratic National Convention was splintered by debate over controversial new civil rights planks that had been proposed for addition to the party platform. Adoption of the planks, urged by a group led by Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, was resisted by delegates from southern states.
[url=http://www.answers.com/topic/dixiecrat]... The planks were adopted, prompting thirty-five southern Democrats to walk out. They formed the States' Rights party, which came to be popularly known as the Dixiecrats.[/url]
... In the 1960s, the courting of white Southern Democratic voters was the basis of the "southern strategy" of the Republican Party's Presidential Campaigns. Republican Presidential Candidate Barry Goldwater carried the Deep South in 1964, despite losing in a landslide in the rest of the nation to President Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas. Johnson surmised that his advocacy behind passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would lose the South for the Democratic party and it did. When the Democrats pushed for civil rights, the Republicans reaped the political benefits of a Southern white backlash.
...Senator Strom Thurmond switched parties and became a Republican as a result of his support for the Barry Goldwater campaign in 1964. Former Democrat Jesse Helms also switched his party registration to Republican in 1970 and won a Senate seat in North Carolina in 1972. Phil Gramm of Texas, at the time a member of the House of Representatives, switched his party registration from Democrat to Republican in 1983.
...Into the twenty-first century, the South has changed from a Democratic monolith to a majority Republican sector of the country with GOP gains in state legislatures. This change, which became quite evident in 1972 with the electoral success of Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy", peaked with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, and was consolidated in 1994 when Republicans gained a majority in the House of Representatives under the leadership of Newt Gingrich.[/quote]
So r-Gumby, let's do a recap, shall we?
The racist dems jumped ship, started the states rights party and finally, joined the gop.
I never said that, so you lie again. You characterized the US as a place with segregated drinking fountains 50 years ago, and I correctly pointed out that it was a phenomenon peculiar to the Dem-controlled South.
I had a lot of good times in the Fillmore during the Sixties, and I'm "white". Social segregation is, for the most part, voluntary. There was not [i]legal[/i] segregation in the US fifty years ago, except in the Dem-controlled South.
[quote] Why was Armitage never called to testify?
Because Armitage knew nothing about how Libby lied to Fitz.[/quote]
Thanks for making my point that the trial was never about the leaking of Plame's name, which was done by Fitz. It was a political hitjob that failed to get its real targets. It degenerated into a perjury trap. There was no lying from Libby, only faulty memory of insignificant events. The "significance" of the events was predicated on a phony justification of going after a leaker, but they never went after the guy who Fitz knew was the real leaker.
You spin like a top.
My whole point to Gene was that the US was not some sort of idyllic wonderland 50 years ago.
Of course you bring up some other stupid argument and manage to get your facts wrong.
There's the lie; false premise, false conclusions.
Once again, your identity politics leads you astray, Gumbylover.
The Dixiecrats were a segregationist part of the Dem Party, who didn't want to abandon the traditional Dem segregation and pro-slavery policies.
The Republican Party was founded to end slavery.
Barry Goldwater, despite your insinuation, never supported segregation. Another lie from you.
The "Southern Strategy" was designed to take advantage of the anger of the southern Dems toward the national party for abandoning the segregationist tradition of the Dem Party.
Republicans never supported segregation.
Again, your grasp of reality and history is skewed.
[quote]It degenerated into a perjury trap. [/quote] There is no such thing as a perjury trap. If you tell the truth there is no perjury.
I've already corrected that mistake; it was Brown v Board of Education in 1954 that ended segregation in the public schools, and was the beginning of the civil rights movement, which originated in the Eisenhower(R) administration. No civil rights legislation passed without the support of the Republicans.
How can you say that the Republicans did not support segregation when you admit their strategy was to get the segregationist in the Democratic party to become Republicans?
I prefer to think of r as stretching like a Gumby.
SF is a [i]liberal[/i] enclave. The fact that there is no affordable housing is due in part to the [b]liberal[/b] green weenies who oppose building anywhere!
[b]No[/b] person of any color would be denied the opportunity to buy a house [b]anywhere[/b] in SF, as long as his money was sufficiently [b]green[/b]!
man to purchase a house in a white neighborhood back than.[/quote]
That's your profane, racist opinion. You started by characterizing the US as a place with segregated drinking fountains 50 years ago, when the fact is that we had already declared segregation illegal 3 years before that, and even so, segregated drinking fountains only were present in one region of the US. You were wrong. In your desperate effort to deny your error, you are changing the subject.
Thanks for telling us about your favorite toy.
Forgive me, if in a thread about a [b]lying essayist[/b], with a detour through [b]Scooter Libby[/b] I mistook [b]one[/b] of your full of shit assertions for another. My bad.
.
It's typical that the Democrats and their liberal allies in the press blame the Republicans over the loss of a key voter bloc, but it's also typical of them to point the finger of blame to others for their own actions. That's part of what "liberalism" has come to mean, in its current corrupted sense of meaning.
to become Republicans?[/quote]
It was about betrayal. Duh. The Republican Party didn't support segregation; that was a fine old tradition of the Dems.
The Republicans promised the Southern Dems a voice in national politics, not segregation.
To summarize:
Dems=pro-slavery
Republicans=anti-slavery
Get it?
"Legal segregation" was segregation under law. Duh.
Social segregation was practiced(and still is) by all racial and ethnic groups, and is a different phenomenon. The original charge you made, segregated drinking fountains, were an artifact of legal segregation, and were peculiar to some parts of the South 50 years ago; they were not common anywhere else.
You lied about that.
Tell the truth now, you're a Stephen Colbert impersonator, right?
Tell the truth now, you're a Stephen Colbert impersonator, right?[/quote]
You're really just a little kid who still plays with dolls, right? Does Mommy know you are on the computer?
As well as [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._William_Fulbright]Bill Clinton's mentor:[/url]
[quote]President Clinton said, "Hillary and I have looked forward for sometime to celebrating this 50th anniversary of the Fulbright Program, to honor the dream and legacy of a great American, a citizen of the world, a native of my home state and my mentor and friend, Senator Fulbright."[/quote]
Imagine if a Republican like Trent Lott had said something like that.
Just another Racist Democrat in my book. Sorry for the redundancy.
The Dem Party was for slavery and segregation before there was a Republican Party. It is part of Dem history. Segregation started because the Republicans freed the slaves. It's called [i]US History[/i]. Read it some time. While you're at it, read up on the Civil War and Reconstruction(which spawned the KKK in the Dem South).
I never said that drinking fountains were segregated the US. I was just making the point to Gene that 50 years ago our country wasn't perfect and maybe we haven't deteriorated.
But your argument that the South was the only place that racist were and that they were all Democrats is ridiculous.
You really [i]are[/i] a little kid still playing with dolls!
Even for you, rbb, that is a completely stupid and ignorant statement! Maybe you need a new doll.
The Southern Strategy was not intended to have the politicians change parties, they already had their power base. It was to get the voters to change. It was a racist strategy that worked to make the Republican party a racist party. The current Republican party, intent on suppressing the votes of minorities, has no claim on the good deeds done by the party 140 years ago.
[quote]Yeah, but you still had blacks drinking out of seperate fountains, so maybe it hasn't deteriorated that much.
Lestat on December 29, 2007 at 10:59 pm [/quote]
Now you say:
[quote]I never said that drinking fountains were segregated the US.[/quote]
Which is it?
You characterized the entire US by mentioning something that was a local phenomenon in some areas of the US fifty years ago, and you were wrong to do so. You have been thoroughly refuted on that, and instead of being a man and admitting your mistake, you continue to lie and bluster. Shame on you!
There is a distinction to be made between the concept of states rights versus the issue of desegregation and human rights.
Northern Democrats were, and continue to be, in favor of the loss of states' rights in favor of more centrally controlled government. That's the political vector responsible for the loss of conservative Democrats from across the country, not just the South.
[quote] Couldn't be there was a general pattern of voting by the Northern Democrats that disenchanted Southern Democrats.[/quote]The strategist in charge of the Republican party in the early 70s have stated what the Southern Strategy was.
It's not about the votes of the minority, it's about the power of the central government. Typically of you socialists that you play the race card here. You can't win on the truth, so you are forced to lie.
This is an outright lie. It would be more true to say that the Dems, through their Ministry of Propaganda, the MSM, has tried to capture the votes of minorities by lying to them. The fact is that the Dems have actually suppressed the votes of the US military by not counting the overseas ballots. They also slashed the tires of some Republican vehicles to prevent them from transporting voters to the polls.
Still can't admit your obvious mistake? In fact, you used the statment about water fountains to characterize how the US was fifty years ago, and you were wrong to do that. Admit what you did, and move on. When you pile one lie on top of another in a pathetic attempt to defend your ego, you fool no one.
Over what states rights issue was the Southern Strategy formed?
You are just another historical revisionist.
Voter caging, r-Gumby, a "state rights" strategy in use by these new guys you call the gop.
Sarah Taylor testified that Tim Griffin (Karl Rove's Tim Griffin, later to replace a fired USA in Arkansas) was in charge of voter caging.
gop Kris Kobach is doing it right now and telling everyone about it
Ohio 2004
Florida 2002
Yes, voter caging is illegal.
Really r-Gumby get yourself some google.
gop Kris Kobach is doing it right now and telling everyone about it [/quote]
More identity politics: making allegations against those who disagree with you. It's also called smear.
No convictions, only allegations.
It was over the issue of States Rights, as opposed to Federal control. It wasn't some particular states rights issue. duh
Gumbyboy: The original statement was a false claim of suppressing the votes of [i]minorities[/i], not "the votes of the minority". duh.
Can't read well?
I wasn't wrong and the fact that it was only in the South was not germane to my argument. You want to combat everything I say so much that you don't even pay attention to the point I was making. You argue facts incidental to the comment, not the substance of the comment.
So, instead of admitting your mistake, you seek to revise what you said? Pure lying cowardice.
Your "point" was to bash the US over the existence of some segregated drinking fountains that existed fifty years ago in a few areas. That was actually symptomatic of the Dem Party hanging onto its roots in slavery, not of the US in general. You were wrong.
Your hate for America has made you stupid.
whydoncha google this: [i]"After ten full years inside the gop, ninety days among honest criminals wasn't really any great ordeal."[/i]
Breakdown his statement: "[i]Back in 2002, just about every Republican operative was so dizzy with power that if you could find two of us who could still tell the difference between politics and crime, you could probably have rubbed us together for fire as well."[/i]
And get back to me about why he and others went to jail. Let us know what you find about his life inside the gop and why he is out.
Wrong. The South fought the Civil War over States Rights. Read that Tenth Amendment, along with the history of the Civil War and the Reconstruction, and learn something.
Your identity politics makes you stupid.
It is also a fact that the Republicans were instrumental in all the Civil Rights legislation, as Carrick has already documented. The Northern Dems broke from the racist tradition of the Dem Party.
You are the moron who is arguing that racism was just a minor problem outside of the south.
If I do include a reference you call it cherry picking.
And the identity politics thingy ...oh that is soooo rich...
You so phunny, r-Gumby you should be on the TEEVEE.
If I do include a reference you call it cherry picking.
And the identity politics thingy ...oh that is soooo rich...
You so phunny, r-Gumby you should be on the TEEVEE.
If I do include a reference you call it cherry picking.
And the identity politics thingy ...oh that is soooo rich...
You so phunny, r-Gumby you should be on the TEEVEE.
That would be you. The South seceeded from the Union over the interpretation of the Tenth Amendment, which states:
[quote]The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[/quote]
The South maintained that the Federal govt had no jurisdiction over slavery under the Tenth Amendment.
While slavery was certainly one of the "hot button issues", it was the interpretation of the Tenth Amendment as to the power of the central govt that was the cause of the Civil War.
[quote]Oh how I love me some Gumbyism[/quote]
It's time to put away your dolls, I think. You have developed an unhealthy obsession.
Your namecalling doesn't cover for you. Racism has always been magnified by the lefties for political purposes. It is leftie racism that keeps a high percentage of African-Americans voting for the Dems, despite their inability to do anything at all to benefit them. Instead, Dem racism has destroyed the family structure in the inner cities and has produced the crack cocaine/pimp culture there.
Improvements in the US are due to the spread of conservatism, not by Dems playing the race card.
You were right about one thing: we have improved, and it is due to the rise of conservatism.
[quote]The South maintained that the Federal govt had no jurisdiction over slavery under the Tenth Amendment.
While slavery was certainly one of the "hot button issues", it was the interpretation of the Tenth Amendment as to the power of the central govt that was the cause of the Civil War. [/quote]It wasn't one of the hot button issues, it was the only one. If there is slavery and the tenth amendment doesn't exist than there is still a war. If there is no slavery and the tenth amendment exists, there is no war. The Civil War was about the ending of a life style in the South due to the end of slavery. The tenth amendment was a best a pretext.
That's the lie; the presence of segregated drinking fountains in some areas of our country doesn't make us "a racist country", which I have pointed out over and over.
If you needed to use the subject of race to demonstrate improvement(among the hundreds of reasons you could have cited), you could have used the example of the Republican Party outlawing slavery in over 140 years ago.
Central control may not be a big deal to you, if you live in an urban region, because central control in practice means that urban regions get to call the shots for everybody else. But for people who live in less populated areas, a republican form of government is a big thing. They don't want the people in Washington telling them how to live.
Robert108: Yes this is absolutely correct.
Slavery was the defining issue, but there were other issues of the day associated with states rights that were in play at the time. The fact that RBB and Lestat are unclear about this just illustrates that we are debating with ignorance.
Obviously that's pretty much a pointless activity unless they admit their ignorance and go obtain a more informed opinion.
Half truths are always as dangerous as outright lies. The civil war: "It is a fact that when the armies for the North and South were first formed, only a small minority of the soldiers on either side would have declared that the reason they joined the army was to fight either "for" or "against" slavery. However, equally true is the statement: "Had there been no slavery, there would have been no war. Had there been no moral condemnation of slavery, there would have been no war." The message here is that the reasons a nation goes to war are usually various and complicated. The American Civil War is no exception.
"The curious thing is that although slavery was the great moral issue of the nineteenth century that divided the political leaders of the land, the average American had very little interest in slaves or slavery. Most Southerners were small farmers that could not afford slaves. Most Northerners were small farmers or tradesmen that had never even seen a slave. But political leaders on both sides were very interested in slaves and slavery. The South's economic system was based upon cotton-and slavery. If the South lost her slaves her entire socio-economic system would collapse." So, my friends, in my opinion the Civil War, while slavery was without doubt the central component, was mostly about states rights and economic pressures that caused fear in the South.
It is a fact that although slavery was ended by the Civil War, racism takes a long time to die. As a fact of modern life, racism was much less a factor in the North and West since the late Nineteenth Century, while in the South it died a longer and harder hard death. The Sixties were a pivotal time in causing America to face her still lingering racism; But, anyone with the least intelligence would have to agree that for all practical purposes racism now is all but dead in America and it is equally true that such feelings will never completely die because there are always people that want to feel superior to others and such people must identify other people that they feel are inferior to them in order to advance their own feelings of superiority and people of color, blacks, Hispanics or Asians can fit that bill quite nicely.
Lastly, America is hardly a racist nation any longer, with admitted trace elements; and the proofs of that abound both at home and abroad. The only ones now interested in perpetuating the idea that we are a racist nation is the self-appointed black welfare pimps like Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton, and pathetic race baiters like the current leaders of the Democrat Party; and an unfortunate number of perpetual victims looking for handouts rather than taking petrsonal responsibility for their lives. For the balance of America, we are perfectly happy to measure people based solely on merit and character.
amendment doesn't exist than there is still a war.[/quote]
Pure leftie fantasy. You are wrong; get over it.
As to the issues(besides slavery) centering on the Tenth Amendment, go here:
http://www.lsinstitute.org/Phillips.htm
Your knowledge of history is extremely lacking. Did you grow up in a bubble that you missed all of this?
[quote]The curious thing is that although slavery was the great moral issue of the nineteenth century that divided the political leaders of the land, the average American had very little interest in slaves or slavery. Most Southerners were small farmers that could not afford slaves. Most Northerners were small farmers or tradesmen that had never even seen a slave.[/quote]This might be the first time in history the poor and under educated were sent to fight and die for the motives of the rich.
Carrick,
[quote]Slavery was the defining issue, but there were other issues of the day associated with states rights that were in play at the time. [/quote]Give me one other issue we would of gone to war over.
In terms of Lestat's other point, racism and prejudice have existed as long as humans have recognized differences between groups. Its hardly a new phenomenon, and it is a a curiously liberal notion that we can "legislate away" one of the less savory components of human nature.
I don't claim a perfect knowledge of history, but it's far superior to yours. I don't spread leftie US bashing propaganda, for one thing.
In contrast to you, I grew up right in the middle of all the stuff you don't know about due to your leftie brainwashing. I repeat, if you want improvements in our society in the last fifty years, there are hundreds of instances that don't involve anything to do with racism. Your example was not only wrong and misleading, it was unnecessary to anyone but a race-baiter, which is my point. Under the guise of praising our country, you played the race card to bash it. Shame on you!
Once again, your leftie brainwashing makes you ignorant. I linked to the reasons the South seceeded from the Union. There is no better resource for knowing the real reasons for the Civil War. Your prejudice keeps you from knowing the truth.
[quote]Give me one other issue we would of gone to war over.[/quote]
Tariffs, for one. The article I linked lists all of them, btw. Your ignorance is willful.
To say that in the last almost 40 years we have been and are still in any significant way a racist country, is an attempt to use race for purely partisan political purposes. If there is any racism [b]LEFT[/b], might I suggest that the Democrat Party's policies that view people of color to be inferior to whites, neeeding special government assistance and treatment to help their poor darkies to compete; and that Democrat Party racism became more deeply entrenched by the Democrat Party Welfare State that for all intent and purposes kept people of color enslaved to federal handouts, kept in the inner city plantations and looking to their white Democrat Plantation owners for their charity and condescension in order to live day to day.
If there is any racism left to any large degree in America, it is within and perpetuated by the Democrat Party, otherwise we are NOT a racist society at all.
[quote]slavery actually harmed the average Southerner, because it undercut what he could ask for in terms of wages, and could negotiate for in terms of work hours.
In terms of Lestat's other point, racism and prejudice have existed as long as humans have recognized differences between groups. Its hardly a new phenomenon, and it is a a curiously liberal notion that we can "legislate away" one of the less savory components of human nature. [/quote]
[b]Absolutely true! Both points![/b]
Lestat:
Read more slowly, I mentioned that states rights and economic threats to the South were also major components, and will you tell me that if I think you are going to destroy my way to make a living and feed my family I would not want to kill you? Nonsense! Slavery, states rights and economic threats in the South were major contributing factors to the Civil War and to suggest otherwise is to deny the facts.
Part of the conflict also centered around the reality of the economic and social differences between the North and the South, and the perceived lack of shared interests between South and North, especially following 1848. Slavery plays a role in that, because it was a key component of Southern culture, and helped produce an elite class of Southern gentility reminiscent of south-of-the border social class structure.
In any case, it is a vast oversimplification to think of this strictly as a war fought over the "right to hold slaves".
The reason for the "independent south" was the feeling that the Tenth Amendment was being violated, which was my argument. You also chose to ignore the many reasons, besides slavery, that were given for secession.
I never made an argument about racism in this country; I just refuted your untrue characterization of us as a racist country and that all the improvement in our society over the last fifty years was based on the existence of segregated drinking fountains.
You continue to be wrong, and are too stupid to know when you have been called out.
States righs is an abstract. Nobody goes to war over an abstract. In the context of the Civl War when the term "states rights" is used what is meant is the right to determine their economic system, which was based on slavery. States rights is code for slavery. It is the same thing.
What a laugh.
There is nothing abstract about who calls the shots over your daily life.
That's the main reason that commoner in the Southern Army fought.
Really: Are you actually suggesting that the majority of white Southerners, who were actually harmed by the institution of slavery, would have fought to maintain it???
That's just silly.
It was the only one you mentioned.
(Liberals use them [i]all[/i] the time!)
And by the way, the fact that you have to give me an example proves that it is an abstract.
www.hannahmontanaconcert.net
"The next best thing to being there!"
The federal government prevented the entirely legal succession of the Southern states.
<blockquoe> the fact that you have to give me an example proves that it is an abstract.Neiman is right. This is pure sophistry.
on fire. Or the fact that most senior citizens no longer live in poverty.[/quote]
But you didn't; you played the leftie race card instead. It's not what you say you meant later(after you've been caught), it's what you actually said. You were wrong to mischaracterize the US that way, hater.
Examples are [i]concrete[/i]. Wrong again.
And from you too, apparently. BTW, slavery wasn't "hidden" from anyone in that time. Thanks for making our point.
[quote]And from you too, apparently. BTW, slavery wasn't "hidden" from anyone in that time. Thanks for making our point. [/quote]Of course everybody in the South knew of slavery and most probably supported it. But to get the soldiers to go to war they were told that the North was invading. They wer lied to.
[/quote]
What you actually said:
[quote]Of course the true reasons for the war were hidden from the soldiers.[/quote]
You see, you have already staked your credibility on the claim that slavery was the [i]only reason[/i] for the war, so which is it? If there were reasons(plural) for the war other than slavery, that makes a liar out of you, doesn't it? Besides, you are wrong about the Southern soldiers being lied to; they felt their way of life was at stake, and they were right. They were fighting for their beloved South, not because they thought they were being attacked. Read up on what Robert E. Lee had to say sometime. You might find it enlightening, since you have so little actual knowledge about the subject. States Rights was not an "abstract concept" to the South. Neither is individual independence for a conservative. The South was willing to fight over States Rights, to the last man. That's concrete. As a leftie, you are unable to understand that, I know.
The South, wrongly using slaves to help their economy, were nonetheless fighting hard to preserve their [b]economic prosperity[/b] and their way of life, which sadly included allowing many to own and use slaves (As had been permitted all over the country at one time and quite of our Founding Fathers were slave owners as well).
Of course, slavery did without any doubt become the focus of the Civil War, but really only after the Emancipation Proclamation was the North officially opposing slavery and there was no cause more dishonorable and vile for the South to support.
Lestat: Your problem is you want to focus only on the slavery aspects, as dispicable as slavery was, you want to brand America as a racist state today, and you choose to ignore the other two issues; and while slavery cannot be ignored in the Civil War, the states rights and economic issues were of very great importance then and states right issues still live with us today with liberals wanting pure federalism on the socialist model and conservatives wanting a minimum of federal authority over the states and average citizens on the Constitutional model.
Lefties want all power in the hands of the Federal govt, unlike what the Constitution specifies. They have used incrementalism to implement this.
Carrick on December 30, 2007 at 04:24 pm
Are you saying that if for example Alaska, Texas, Hawaii, California and North Dakota wanted to succeed the US there would not be a problem?
And would you support such action because as you say it is legal?
The soldiers fought for the reason they chose to fight. They obviously knew their own motivations! As to the North invading... of course they were going to invade. What transpires for reasoning among you "liberals" is at times breathtaking.
Not so much when you consider that they justify the terrorism on 9/11(and all other terrorism) by saying that we "invaded" the terrorist "Holy Land". They blame the terrorism of the so-called "Palestinians" on the invasion of "their" land by Israel.
I would say they are simply being consistent...and wrong.
robert108 on December 30, 2007 at 08:53 pm
Robert your answer sidesteps and iignores my question.
My question remains unanswered.
If you or Carrick don't mind please answer my question.
To the contrary; your question has been answered, but you don't comprehend it as the answer.
In all fairness, your first question was a hypothetical, posed as a question about what Carrick believes, and he has not chosen to answer it so far.
I did answer your second question.
Your overall question, which you haven't asked clearly, is answered by what Carrick and I have both told you: The Civil War was fought over the Tenth Amendment.
If you still don't get it, I may give you a detailed explanation of what you should already know.
Lincoln did it anyway, and the South responded by invoking the Tenth Amendment and going to war to defend their States Rights as stated in the Tenth Amendment.
This is why the Civil War was fought over the Tenth Amendment. But then, Carrick and I have already stated that.
It is an artifact of govt schools that our history is taught otherwise.
Agreed. You finally said something smart.
The company is considering taking back the tickets. Personally, I think the mother should be investigated by child protection for involving her daughter in a blatant crime - fraud.
Now you go and ruin the smart thing you said, with a really, really STUPID one! Two way over the top actions don't make things right, ya big dope.
Oh wait, maybe you were being "funny" again?
Once again Hannitized shows the world that his synapses simply don't fire correctly.
Hannitized - to obtain or atempt to obtain something of value by misrepresntation or by other fraudulent means is fraud. Simple.
Sort of like when you attempt to present yourself as a rational, thinking human being, only in her case it's a real crime, not an intellectual one.
Thank you for correcting me Neiman.