publiusvarus wrote:
What you should be asking yourself is why you blindly trust the govn with so much?
Edited, Oct 27th 2009 2:26pm by Uglysasquatch
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Obama the golphing president
Obama the golphing presidentFollow
Because I'm a white male and an earner. I am the government you tit.
Edited, Oct 27th 2009 2:26pm by Uglysasquatch
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
publiusvarus wrote:
Ugly,
Didn't say he was.
Quote:
First off, even I know that Abraham Lincoln wasn't one of the 5 most important people at the founding of your country, and I'm not from your country.
Didn't say he was.
Yeah, you pretty much did. Which begs the question.
Is Varrus getting dumber and dumber as time goes by
| Yes: |    | 2 (13.3%) |
| Well, duh : | | 4 (26.7%) |
| Of course : | | 0 (0.0%) |
| Hmmm? : | | 0 (0.0%) |
| I would vote for Varrus in a "Best Pumpkin Contest": | | 9 (60.0%) |
| Total: | 15 |
Edited, Oct 27th 2009 5:29pm by RedPhoenixxx
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
[question]Is Varrus getting dumber and dumber as time goes by[/question]
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
publiusvarus wrote:
Ugly,
Another liberal bringing up race. How's that white guilt working out for ya?
Quote:
Because I'm a white male and an earner. I am the government you tit.
Another liberal bringing up race. How's that white guilt working out for ya?
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
publiusvarus wrote:
Kujo,
Ok here ya go...Abraham Lincoln was a commie who ignored the constitution so that northern states could exert control over southern states.
As for Jefferson he also said;
Jefferson was anti-banking, anti-big govn, but not necessarily anti-big business nor was he expressely against capitalism. In fact if you look at the body of his work he was more against big govn controlling the banks and the use of paper money than anything.
Quote:
As to why - I just want to hear you call one of the top 5 people at the birth of the country a Commie. It will make me chuckle to hear the sheer awesomeness of a staunch conservative such as yourself shÃtting on the author of the Declaration of Independence.
Ok here ya go...Abraham Lincoln was a commie who ignored the constitution so that northern states could exert control over southern states.
As for Jefferson he also said;
Quote:
“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.†--Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson was anti-banking, anti-big govn, but not necessarily anti-big business nor was he expressely against capitalism. In fact if you look at the body of his work he was more against big govn controlling the banks and the use of paper money than anything.
1) Abraham Lincoln was not a founding father.
2) Two Jefferson Quotes:
Thomas Jefferson, who was not Abraham Lincoln wrote:
I hope we shall take warning from the example [England] and crush in it's birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country
Thomas Jefferson, who was not Abraham Lincoln wrote:
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains.
GJ at reading 50% of what he wrote. He clearly thought corporations were already challenging and defying the country a mere 30 years after its birth. And from a man who risked his very life birthing his country, a statement such as "merchants have no country" is a strong statement against business.
If you seriously dont see this, try reading 100% of the quote.
He was against a US that was based on commerce. He wanted a country of yeomen and farmers.
He was against a US that was based on commerce. He wanted a country of yeomen and farmers.
He was against a US that was based on commerce. He wanted a country of yeomen and farmers.
There, hopefully that will enter your 50% of reading.
So again, would you call Jefferson a Commie for having such a stance against business?
publiusvarus wrote:
kujo,
I think you misunderstand the meaning and context of this quote. He was specifically talking about Englands aristocraticaly controlled corporations. This is a far cry from Jefferson saying he's anti-capitalist.
I think you misunderstand the meaning and context of this quote. He was specifically talking about Englands aristocraticaly controlled corporations. This is a far cry from Jefferson saying he's anti-capitalist.
There is no direct quote of him saying he was anti-capitalist (when did that term come on anyway). But his disdain for business - and its effects on country - are clear. Also, he was saying it was happening in America, as his pen graced the paper. He wasnt just talking about England.
publiusvarus wrote:
Again you're reading into this quote what you want. Merchants don't have a country they are only beholding to their shareholders. This is a fact and doesn't necessarily mean he's against corporations.
And you dont see how that could come into direct conflict with allegiance to a country? Dont you realize how much that would **** a guy off who just risked life, limb, and property to secure a country just so those asshats could sell there wares?
So again I ask you - care to call Jefferson a commie?
publiusvarus wrote:
kujo,
I never said Lincoln was a founding father.
I never said Lincoln was a founding father.
I said it would tickle me pink if you called a founding father a commie and asked you to do so. You listed your disdain for Abraham Lincoln. I didnt ask for any American figure, I asked for a founding father. You supplied Abraham Lincoln. Since I asked for a founding father and you gave Lincoln, why SHOULDNT we think that you think Lincoln is a founding father?
Edited, Oct 27th 2009 3:26pm by ManifestOfKujata
publiusvarus wrote:
He was specifically talking about Englands aristocraticaly controlled corporations.
Hahahahahhahaha....
No.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Are we still talking about the founding fathers as though their opinion is The Holiest Word, or did I miss something?
publiusvarus wrote:
CBD,
We're talking about something?
We're talking about something?
I'm sure there's a really clever zinger in here somewhere. I'll keep looking.
publiusvarus wrote:
Yes...easy isn't it?
To laugh at you?
Yes.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
publiusvarus wrote:
Do you think someone who made their fortune off the backs of slave labour should be considered a credible source for liberty and freedom?
Good point. I never thought about it like that.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
publiusvarus wrote:
Do you think someone who made their fortune off the backs of slave labour should be considered a credible source for liberty and freedom?
Good point. I never thought about it like that.
And the guy who brought an end to slavery is disqualified because he used tyranny to do that.
We've never actually had a good leader, I guess.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
publiusvarus wrote:
Kujo,
Do you think someone who made their fortune off the backs of slave labour should be considered a credible source for a fair economic system?
Do you think someone who made their fortune off the backs of slave labour should be considered a credible source for a fair economic system?
Uh, Jefferson was always in debt and he died a poor man.
He was an active abolitionist, and actually included this in the initial Declaration of Independence:
Quote:
[England] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere
Georgia and South Carolina made him take it out.
Also, he tried to eliminate slavery several times and was turned back each time.
He did have slaves though - but he got them through notes and mortgages, and being in constant debt he felt he couldnt just free them - whihc is lame, but the truth. He freed several of them upon his death.
But no - he didnt make his fortune off the backs of slaves. He never purchased slaves and had no fortune. He died highly in debt.
Varus wrote:
I know. Liberal Democrats tend to fall in love with homicidal mass murdering dictators frequently; mao, saddam, castro, stalin.
Wouldn't be the same without them.
Quote:
I know. Liberal Democrats tend to fall in love with homicidal mass murdering dictators frequently; mao, saddam, castro, stalin.
Ya, those liberal commie pinkos... like Donald Rumsfeld, and Ronnie Reagan sucking up to Saddam because he hated Iran.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
publiusvarus wrote:
kujo,
Yes he was obviously hit by hard times. He could never seem to hit that 1k mark for the number of slaves he owned.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jefflife.html
Edited, Oct 27th 2009 4:44pm by publiusvarus
Edited, Oct 27th 2009 4:44pm by publiusvarus
Quote:
On September 15, 1793, while residing as secretary of state in Pennsylvania, which had abolished slavery in 1780, Thomas Jefferson promised to free his slave James Hemings, after James had trained a replacement French chef. On February 5, 1796, Jefferson freed James and provided money for his return to Philadelphia. Jefferson manumitted or allowed to escape from bondage only ten slaves, all members of the Hemings family, out of over six hundred he owned over the course of his life. Five of those gained freedom in his lifetime, five under the terms of his will.
Yes he was obviously hit by hard times. He could never seem to hit that 1k mark for the number of slaves he owned.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jefflife.html
Edited, Oct 27th 2009 4:44pm by publiusvarus
Edited, Oct 27th 2009 4:44pm by publiusvarus
Hey, I never said he didnt own slaves, you just made the dumb claim he made a fortune off them - which is false.
It is a known fact he died in debt, and it could probably be said he wasnt great with money. But does that mean there is no wisdom in his views that letting corporations have too much control in the country would lead to widespread corruption? It certainly doesnt.
ManifestOfKujata wrote:
hmmm, of course there are other factors that can help speed things up. I really cant think of any instance where someone had superior technology and lost. I am being honest here (no sarcasm), can anyone think of a time when someone had the technology behind them and lost (and it wasnt due to the case I mentioned, just an overwhelming amount of opposing troops).
I saw someone mentioned the Vietnam war, but.....really, the Chinese (and to a very small extent) the Russians sent troops as well, and they supplied North Vietnam with arms - which was on par (at the time) with America's arms, so in that war technology was somewhat nullified by both sides having comparable weapons. In that instance, it was probably troop numbers (and homeland advantage) that won it for the North Vietnamese.
I saw someone mentioned the Vietnam war, but.....really, the Chinese (and to a very small extent) the Russians sent troops as well, and they supplied North Vietnam with arms - which was on par (at the time) with America's arms, so in that war technology was somewhat nullified by both sides having comparable weapons. In that instance, it was probably troop numbers (and homeland advantage) that won it for the North Vietnamese.
Arms vs air superiority. The whole war. Training made just as much of a difference here. The average bullets to kill in the Vietnam war? 1000. Basically new recruits would just go berserk and chew through trees while the Vietnamese hid. Agent Orange, using air to blow the living crap out of the viets. One of the key problems was that Washington was running the war and not the generals. They did have the technology over them. Tactics are the reason they lost. Which changed in the first Desert Storm, when they were like "Okay we don't like getting owned. Kill them for us." and they pull off one of the most successful (IMO) campaigns in american history. Lost more troops training for it then they did in the actual war. Which was about 350. No doubt they had the technological edge, but it was the tactics that makes it such an amazing and successful invasion.
Concerning the Aztecs, it was multiple things. The Aztecs essentially maintained power by being the tough guys who nobody messed with. Short battles nearby really did the trick for them. Essentially fear. Then the spanish come along, and kidnap the king. Smallpox decimated their numbers. Technology did not win it for the spanish, it was a question of politics, germs and what Aztec weapons were designed for. Which is to capture the enemy, not kill. For sacrifices of course. In many cases, the Aztecs captured spanish forces and made them teach them/use the weapons themselves against the spanish. However, the metal armour they wore at the time wasn't bothered by the blunt swords that the Aztecs used. They used superior tactics, in that they'd all hit the ground upon hearing a shot and running zig zag at the spanish making them difficult targets.
I'd like to ask you the same question, have you ever read a history book?
Edited to fix the question of intentional germ warfare. I was thinking a bit more into the war of 1812, where disease ridden blankets were shared from one dead sick person to another sick person or even healthy person.
Edited, Oct 27th 2009 7:13pm by manicshock
Recent Visitors: 252
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (252)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Obama the golphing president
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC