2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

[Old Pio]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

You complain about moral equivalence yet are quick to bring up Jane Fonda to justify people who committed armed treason against the United States. Again, the actions of one actress (however vile) do not nearly equate to an entire section of this country rebeling against our country.

Yes, I'm aware of the Lincoln quote from his second inaugural. What he got for his trouble is a bullet in the back of the head. I wonder if he might have felt a bit different about maliceg and charity if he'd somehow survived. Regardless, the men who committed that treason against the United States are celebrated as heroes and "the War of Northern Aggression" is still popular in some circles. Maybe if they'd been shown more malice and less charity they'd be remembered 150 years later as the traitors they were. People should feel no different about the Stars and Bars as they do about the Nazi Swastika.

You need help. Lots of it. Your monomaniacal rantings equating yahoos who celebrate the Confederacy with the Third Reich are delusional. A review of the relevant posts will reveal a discussion on the limits of "opposing government policies" during the Vietnam era was on the table. Burd and I were discussing the limits to that opposition. And you jumped in, frothing at the mouth about the Confederacy. It is you who changed the subject. It is you who offered a moral equivalency argument. Not I.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

So should we feel the same about the union jack?

And the Tri Coleur? And the flag of Mexico?

 

[Priceless]

So should we feel the same about the union jack?

In the time that has passed the United States and Great Britain have normalized relations and become allies. It's not like we have monuments or celebrate King George III or Lord Cornwallis. It wasn't something that happened overnight. We have also normalized relations with the Vietnamese - one of my hockey players piloted the first American Naval vessel to visit Vietnam since 1975. We never normalized relations with the Confederacy. The last act of their government consisted of Jeff Davis running around the South dressed as a woman to escape capture. Lincoln might have normalized relations but we'll never know because a Confederate sympathizer put a bullet in his head.

Reconstruction was off to a good start but then a raw deal ended it and ushered in nearly a century of Jim Crow laws. Maybe, just maybe, if people in the South had grown up learning that Lee and Jackson were traitors instead of heroes to be admired, attitudes might have changed. However that never happened. They are still celebrated and a good portion of those in Southern states still think Negroes should have the same rights as lawn furniture.

And yes, OP, I know people back then identified themselves as Democrats but the parties reversed roles in the 1950's and 60's.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

In the time that has passed the United States and Great Britain have normalized relations and become allies. It's not like we have monuments or celebrate King George III or Lord Cornwallis. It wasn't something that happened overnight. We have also normalized relations with the Vietnamese - one of my hockey players piloted the first American Naval vessel to visit Vietnam since 1975. We never normalized relations with the Confederacy. The last act of their government consisted of Jeff Davis running around the South dressed as a woman to escape capture. Lincoln might have normalized relations but we'll never know because a Confederate sympathizer put a bullet in his head.

Reconstruction was off to a good start but then a raw deal ended it and ushered in nearly a century of Jim Crow laws. Maybe, just maybe, if people in the South had grown up learning that Lee and Jackson were traitors instead of heroes to be admired, attitudes might have changed. However that never happened. They are still celebrated and a good portion of those in Southern states still think Negroes should have the same rights as lawn furniture.

And yes, OP, I know people back then identified themselves as Democrats but the parties reversed roles in the 1950's and 60's.

I'd recommend an application of the First Rule of Holes here. But you're "pregnant with celestial fire" on the subject of punishing the South, so it would be a waste of time. I think you've exposed yourself as creepily unbalanced on the subject. No harm done, of course. But, dude, that was like 150 years ago! Your prejudices are not evidence of anything, except perhaps your inability to think clearly.

George Wallace, Orville Faubus, Lester Mattox, the Grand Cyclops Bobby Byrd, et al--them boys didn't just "identify" themselves as Democrats, they wuz Democrats.

 

[Priceless]

I'd recommend an application of the First Rule of Holes here. But you're "pregnant with celestial fire" on the subject of punishing the South, so it would be a waste of time. I think you've exposed yourself as creepily unbalanced on the subject. No harm done, of course. But, dude, that was like 150 years ago! Your prejudices are not evidence of anything, except perhaps your inability to think clearly.

George Wallace, Orville Faubus, Lester Mattox, the Grand Cyclops Bobby Byrd, et al--them boys didn't just "identify" themselves as Democrats, they wuz Democrats.

And you have an unhealthy preoccupation with events that happened 20-60 years ago.

I know my views on the South and the Civil War are not mainstream. However, I think many of the problems that exist today are because the South wasn't humbled the way they should have been after they collectively committed treason against this country. As former Congressman Tom Allen told us after the 2004 election: It's time to reexamine Lincoln's place in history...he had a chance to let the Southern states leave and he blew it. (said tongue in cheek)

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

And you have an unhealthy preoccupation with events that happened 20-60 years ago.

I know my views on the South and the Civil War are not mainstream. However, I think many of the problems that exist today are because the South wasn't humbled the way they should have been after they collectively committed treason against this country. As former Congressman Tom Allen told us after the 2004 election: It's time to reexamine Lincoln's place in history...he had a chance to let the Southern states leave and he blew it. (said tongue in cheek)

"Not mainstream?" I'd say you've revealed yourself to be several orders of magnitude beyond "mainstream." Here's an idea: It's not too late to have Nuremburg-style war crimes tribunals for rebel descendants. We could start by indicting the relatives of the more than 1,000 blacks who owned slaves as of the outbreak of the war. If only to make certain they're not included on any future list of "victims" of slavery who are due "reparations".

Just for the record: we're talking about your ante bellum obsessions here. My attitudes on anything don't justify or explain your desire to have imposed a Carthaginian Peace on the south. Your persistent efforts to change the subject reveal just how weak and demented you realize your arguments are.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

So, the liberal left now wishes Lincoln had let the South secede 150 years ago, but defends the military force used to prevent the South from leaving, considers the South's killing of Union soldiers treasonous, even though it was done not in the name of aggression or occupation of the north, but to divorce itself from a portion of the country with which it had nothing in common, which the liberal left wishes would have occurred?

 

[Priceless]

So, the liberal left now wishes Lincoln had let the South secede 150 years ago, but defends the military force used to prevent the South from leaving, considers the South's killing of Union soldiers treasonous, even though it was done not in the name of aggression or occupation of the north, but to divorce itself from a portion of the country with which it had nothing in common, which the liberal left wishes would have occurred?

It was a joke. Hence the term "tongue in cheek."

 

[Handyman]

It was a joke. Hence the term "tongue in cheek."

He is a NoDak fan, their sense of humor died when Panzer lost the Hobey

 

[burd]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

He is a NoDak fan, their sense of humor died when Panzer lost the Hobey

Don't get us started!!!!!

 

[SJHovey]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

It was a joke. Hence the term "tongue in cheek."

I read your parenthetical, and I understand the phrase "tongue in cheek." I was just trying to figure out your stance here. The South wanted to leave. Although it's fun to joke about letting them, Lincoln really did have a good idea to try to hold the union together. But only if we "sufficiently humble" them?

I'll guess we'll see how that works out. Putin is giving it a shot right now.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

So, the liberal left now wishes Lincoln had let the South secede 150 years ago, but defends the military force used to prevent the South from leaving, considers the South's killing of Union soldiers treasonous, even though it was done not in the name of aggression or occupation of the north, but to divorce itself from a portion of the country with which it had nothing in common, which the liberal left wishes would have occurred?

I don't defend the military force at all. Texas wants to leave now and I say, "don't let the door hit you in the *** on the way out."

Lincoln should be reevaluated.

 

[Priceless]

I read your parenthetical, and I understand the phrase "tongue in cheek." I was just trying to figure out your stance here. The South wanted to leave. Although it's fun to joke about letting them, Lincoln really did have a good idea to try to hold the union together. But only if we "sufficiently humble" them?

That about sums it up. Stonewall Jackson and his ilk should be no more honored and respected by school children than Timothy McVeigh.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/03/u...fusing-to-identify-a-confidential-source.html

I figure this belongs in this thread rather than the SCotUS thread. I become increasingly disturbed by this administration's lack of Constitutional awareness.

Between the drone attacks on US citizens overseas, the massive overreach by the NSA, and the unprecedented attack on the press (eight subpoenas in six years compared to three in the 232 year preceding it).

 

[unofan]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

I become increasingly disturbed by this administration's lack of Constitutional awareness... the unprecedented attack on the press (eight subpoenas in six years compared to three in the 232 year preceding it).

Say what you want about the policy of shield laws for reporters and the lack of one at the Federal level, isn't the fact that the Fourth Circuit upheld the subpoena and SCOTUS denied cert fairly strong evidence that the gov't is acting constitutionally?

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

If you want to view at that way, sure.

Personally, I think the SCOTUS over the last 15-20 years has been slowly chopping away at the basic tenets of the constitution. I vehemently disagree with the idea that a journalist should be able to be compelled by the government to reveal his or her source.

 

[Priceless]

If you want to view at that way, sure.

Personally, I think the SCOTUS over the last 15-20 years has been slowly chopping away at the basic tenets of the constitution. I vehemently disagree with the idea that a journalist should be able to be compelled by the government to reveal his or her source.

I do as well, but if the law says they can would you expect a prosecutor NOT to do it? And how does this figure into the umbrella of our president supposedly acting outside the Constitution? SCOTUS says its within the rules.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

The administration had directed the justice system to not pursue marijuana violations in a number of states despite them having the authority to do just that.

Not sure about the second part of your question. But I think it goes back to the point I made above. The president is well within his authority to not "violate" the constitution. It just goes back to whether or not they respect the spirit of the constitution.

 

[Priceless]

The administration had directed the justice system to not pursue marijuana violations in a number of states despite them having the authority to do just that.

Not sure about the second part of your question. But I think it goes back to the point I made above. The president is well within his authority to not "violate" the constitution. It just goes back to whether or not they respect the spirit of the constitution.

Oh, I see. As Dickie Dunn would say, "It's the spirit of the thing."

 

[burd]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

If you want to view at that way, sure.

Personally, I think the SCOTUS over the last 15-20 years has been slowly chopping away at the basic tenets of the constitution. I vehemently disagree with the idea that a journalist should be able to be compelled by the government to reveal his or her source.

Even before 9-11, the 4th Amendment was reduced to poor stepchild status.