Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests How well has Bush handled the war of terror?

hehe its ok... I get heated on other issues... I am a hard core moderate... and am not going to complain about either candidate because i honestly dont care... Kerry is a scary hippy and bush cant talk... its great... but uhhhh... yeah bush is gonna win. lol...

hehe its ok... I get heated on other issues... I am a hard core moderate... and am not going to complain about either candidate because i honestly dont care... Kerry is a scary hippy and bush cant talk... its great... but uhhhh... yeah bush is still gonna win. lol...

Jato
It's fairly obvious that you think quite highly of yourself and although some of your theories(I know there facts in your mind)may ring of some truth people have a hard time considering them because you have to punctuate your thoughts by trying to make other feel small.
I know as you stated before you "can't suffer the fools" because you think on a higher plain than the rest of us do. Well maybe if you can't keep a civil tongue in your head maybe you should spare us and STFU! One would think that a "higher thinker" such as yourself could communicate on a higher level too.

This thread seems to be the noob invasion, wtf?

Here's an interesting discussion...

free conservatives.com

It covers many topics. This is one for you

Liberals to read too!!

since you and i have beat the iraq war and bush's handling of it to a bloody soup over the past two years i'll digress on your points. at least now you're acknowledging some of bush's fcukups since they're so blantantly obvious that you can't ignore them, even though bush wants to ignore them. i know, he can't admit to his mistakes because he can't show any hint of weakness at this point and yadda yadda. anyway we could argue all of this for the next 10 pages like the old days, but you would lose the debate like you always do.

anyways since i feel like going off on a tangent, i'd like to take issue with this statement:

Originally posted by JaTo:

---

Ultimately, this is akin to claiming that the US Civil war was about slavery, when ULTIMATELY it was about state's rights.

---

imo (and ULTIMATELY) the civil war WAS about slavery. you can try to say it was about state's rights but that's just the pr reason. if slavery wasn't in the US during that time would there have been a civil war?

of course the argument on states rights started way before the war came to play, but the argument on rights was directly/indirectly about the southern states rights to use a different set of laws towards non-whites, which in turn protected slave labor because their economy depended on it.

that conflict over states rights dates back to the argument over the Negro Seaman's Act which SC was using to bar black controlled ships from coming to port (or enslaving them if they did), in addition the Coasting Act was an issue because some states weren't recognizing the fed government's power to grant port access to any ship with the fed permit, which further raised tensions about fed regulating commerce. all of this was tied to interstate commerce....which was one of the main points the fed government felt they could regulate. the south feared that if the fed could regulate interstate commerce then they would be able to end slavery which was the lifeblood of southern economy.

so, in end the civil was was about slavery

care to bite on that one jato, ole buddy.

Pull ANY point I refuted in this list of sh!t and I'll back what I've typed up with any number of journals, articles and links from respected publications, not op-eds, propaganda driven material or snippets from the latest Moveon.org sponsored infomercial.

Please, pick one. I fully welcome scrutiny on what I have put forth.

I don't think as high of myself as I do as low of some of the acolytes of ignorance that "cut and paste" election-year propaganda and misinformation and try to hang their unthinking ideology all over it. I refuse to maintain a "civil" discourse when such insipid ignorance is flashed in front of me and is passed off as FACT. I freely state some of my aggrivation of this current administration's failures and agree with a few points in the article, but of course this totally escapes you.

10 minutes of reading on Iraq in People Magazine doesn't make one an expert on the subject; years of reading about Islam, Iraq, the intelligence community here in the US and knowing folks within it's circle as well as having a fairly decent command of history doesn't make me ANYWHERE near an expert, either. I am, however, versed well enough to see through the partisan feces that is often passed around by those that refuse to take the time and care to really reseach what they are unthinkingly regurgitating.

In short, I call things like I see them. When I'm not being singled out and lumped into a column and when I'm not being presented with unthinking propaganda, I keep my fingers off the keyboard or approach it with a much better measure of respect and civility.

The attention to detail that the mainstream media has paid Iraq and the issues leading up to the invasion of it is ABSOLUTELY abysmal. The distortions are beyond frightening and the VAST majority of them boil down to a) political muck or b) journalistic sensationalism, or a combination of both. When I see material like this boiled down even further to serve as a cornerstone of smear (and I've seen volumes of it puked out in a great many places), it makes me want to retch.

There are liberals and differing viewpoints I do respond to in a civil fashion on this site (though I'll admit I still usually maintain a small level of causticness even then ); the difference between them and others is that their viewpoints are much more carefully thought out and presented in a light that is less distorted that bile such as this.

Since you've spared me of any blatant ignorance on your part, you'll notice I haven't retorted in any nasty fashion towards you.

So, with that, I'll address the following quote in your direction:

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."
-Eleanor Roosevelt

Slavery was the most emotional issue that existed around the Civil War (hence it being the most sounded and one that received the most attention). However, tarrifs that had been unfairly placed upon Southern states and the political power that they were losing to their Northern counterparts were the main reasons behind their wishes to part ways with the North (not entirely unlike the 13 colonies beef with England in the mid to late 1700s). There was a growing cultural and ideological scism between these States; slavery was an issue and it was the most commonly-held polarizing issue that the masses could most easily relate to in offering their differences between their Northern or Southern brethren, but the fact was that it wasn't brought forth at any great lengths until the Civil war. Taxation policy, import/export issues, legislative power; these and a SLEW of others that boiled down to a difference in interpretation of STATE'S RIGHTS is what it was about.

Any historian worth their salt and EVERY book I've read on the civil war from lauded authors and historians pounds this fact into the ground.

Finally, if slavery was the main issue, then Lincoln wouldn't have responded as such:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."

Abraham Lincoln

The salient fact stands that the Confederate States of American wasn't established because of a overwhelming fear of losing slaves. It was established because of decades of political and economical inequity existed between Northern and Southern states and that came to an impasse. Nor did the Northern states declare war on the Southern ones to free slaves.

Yes, it was an issue, but not the main issue.

Just out of curiosity, what books have you read on the civil war that are framing slavery as the main cause of it?

most historians (and abe himself) dance around the issue by attributing the war to state's rights, political/economical woes, and the deterioration of the union due to the southern states wanting more representation. but what was all of this born out of...the southern states feeling their economy would suffer as a result of losing their rights to function as they please. they were afraid that the fed would establish an overarching set of laws that would ultimately regulate how they conduct commerce and in turn affect the southern economy. and what was the lifeblood of the southern economy? slavery.

so in a word slavery may not have been the stated reson for the war, but ALL of the issues can be traced back to it.

still you never answered my original question which i will now restate: if the southern economy was not dependant on slave labor would there have been a civil war? i've given you several examples in my previous post of how the fed regulation of commerce was directly related to slavery.

back to the original post...

What exactly is Kerry's "PLAN" for anything? He keeps referring to "I have a plan to win the peace in Iraq" and "I have a plan for Tort reform." Can anyone tell us what the f^ck are these "PLANS?"