I guess there's some advantages of a country built on corruption, bribery and loopholes (regarding regulations).
2020 US Presidential Election
- Thread starter Born To Slay
- Start date
MemberYou're vastly mistaken on that history. I see you've been reading the romanticised and vastly edited civil war history that the daughters of the Confederacy put out there. The rich socialites of the south, that wanted to maintain their old way of life as best they could.
The south attacked first. Imagine if California attacked a federal armory or air base today. Say no one got hurt but 2 people due to friendly fire. They then say, they're seceding. Should Trump just not respond to that? Of course not. He would be prompted to respond in kind, to maintain the union. Then again, he might just let them go cause it hurts his political party to get them back, but hey, he should respond by taking it back, or at the very least blockading them to sue for peace.
Lincoln was remarkably level headed for the events that led to and through the civil war, and to say Trump, the con man who bankrupted his own Casino, deserves more respect from him is insane.
I have been reading about the real estate market in the US, and there is not much freedom there either; there are lots of regulations.
Owners cannot choose the person to whom they rent their properties!!!! There isn't even that basic freedom of choice.
Here's another reply for ya. At least, it's different than what you get from liberals so if you disagree or don't like it, it is a different perspective than what the Marxists here post, right?
Speaking of that:
https://www.breitbart.com/entertain...demonstrations-are-rehearsals-for-revolution/
The people who own guns understand society and people. They understand what happened during America's history and the political climate now.
But, let me interrupt that train of thought to ask you a question? Do you think that Ukraine would have been as easily sectioned off if everyone had guns? It look militias to prevent the separatists from expanding further.
There are drastically different political opinions in the USA and the far left there are getting more arrogant and violent. In the country where you live, people weren't armed and the far left were fractioned but one (the "Reds" or Bolsheviks) took power by force, violent force.
Lots of people just think of the smaller picture but the bigger picture doesn't occur to them. Or they are so cynical and skeptical, they disregard it automatically and completely.
Power and quick war profiteering. Shoddy uniforms and other war equipment, made fortunes, or increased them for those who were already very wealthy. This is a very involved topic, and even includes banking, and bond sales opportunities.
A little known fact: The Civil war was responsible for the creation of the first American female millionaires.
What nonsense. I am sure the official Civil War documentation out there is taken from the Confederacy. Take your snake oil to someone else.
Power? He was the President. And a very rich man.
I'm fully aware that certain people get rich through war, but is there any evidence that this was Lincoln's particular motive? Everything I've read suggests the opposite.
Someone just asked what I was reading and I had to explain that it was a thread about US Politics that somehow turned into a debate about whether the Confederacy was in the right argued on both sides equally by Americans and non Americans alike and they gave me a funny look.
Utterly ridiculous that this has to be said. The Civil War was not a war of Northen Aggression. The above video disputes such a myth an accessible, humorous way. (Captions available for those who need them, but they are likely of poor quality.)
And before anyone starts:
The Civil War was fought Because of slavery
The Confederacy fought to maintain the institution of slavery
By the time The South even considered the possibility of maybe freeing slaves, they were already getting their ass kicked. Such a move was a last resort, and not their plan from the start.
And "fading slavery out over time" would've still resulted in thousands of innocent people being forced to live in bondage, subject to unspeakably horrific treatment with no means of defending themselves.
Sincerely, a southerner.
- Aug 28, 2019
- 1,496
- Tinnitus Since
- -
- Cause of Tinnitus
- -
No, it is sold over the counter legitimately, no corruption needed.
It's very society specific, ie the culture and mentality.Here's another reply for ya. At least, it's different than what you get from liberals so if you disagree or don't like it, it is a different perspective than what the Marxists here post, right?
Speaking of that:
https://www.breitbart.com/entertain...demonstrations-are-rehearsals-for-revolution/
The people who own guns understand society and people. They understand what happened during America's history and the political climate now.
Switzerland has a very low homicide rate, but shooting as a sport is encouraged by the government, and until lately conscripts kept their weapons at home.
Go to the UK and I think many (but certainly not all) people would wonder why the hell you would need a gun at all. The UK has a low homicide rate and strict gun control.
The Russian homicide rate is way higher than that of the US, i.e. 8.21 compared to 4.9 (per 100,000), yet Russia has way fewer guns. And the Russian figure may well be much higher; in fact it used to be much higher a few years ago if I remember correctly. But I don't know the homicide cause breakdown; probably many alcohol and domestic violence cases.
What I'm saying is that how people see guns and how they are used is very dependent on the mentality and the culture of the people. Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you are necessarily going to use it, but you may consider it essential for some unforeseen event.
Rambling.
No idea. Remember that these separatists are supported/controlled by the Russian military; don't think for a second that they are not.
Force is always the way here, and I don't think things will change anytime soon... guns or no guns.
I agree with this. I think we may all have been guilty of this from time to time, but now I am fully aware, I feel, of the bigger picture.
Here, they are still aware of the bigger picture in many ways, whereas in the UK I feel they aren't. My wife told me that when she was at school they had shooting lessons and had to assemble and disassemble an AK-47, and they were awarded marks for it. They still do this in many school and make it into a competition and sometimes give cash prizes for who can put an AK together again the fastest. They make it a fun way to learn self survival / military skills with a big dose of patriotism thrown in.
- Apr 30, 2018
- 2,507
- Tinnitus Since
- 02/2018
- Cause of Tinnitus
- Single 25 mg dose of (anticholinergic) drug Promethazine
Another one:
Los Angeles: sheriff's deputies fatally shoot Black man stopped for riding bicycle
Police say they saw man riding bicycle in violation of vehicle codes and a chase and fight ensued
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/01/los-angeles-police-shoot-black-man-bicycle
If California, or Texas, or any other such state wanted out, I see no problem with allowing them to go. Whether our president would agree, I do not know.
Do you believe that the Soviet states should have not been permitted to secede from the Soviet Empire, as well? How about the E.U., should the other countries go to war with the ones that want to withdraw?
The historical fact that the Civil War cost the lives of at least 750,000 soldiers, created hundreds of thousands of widows, millions of children left fatherless, and the ensuing problems we have had with the South since then, is a tip off to me, that they should have been let go. Are you actually glad they were forced to stay, to drain the economy, enforce segregation for 100 years, keep prayer in public schools as long as possible, fight against abortion rights, and vote for Trump (for which I don't blame them)? You must really hate this country, or have been conditioned, like so many have been, into believing that Lincoln was a great man and did the best he could, for the greater good. Have Trump's worst actions as president ever come within 1% of the war bloodshed and ensuing savagery, injustices, lynchings, the KKK, and other heartbreak that happened because Lincoln would not let the Confederacy leave the Union, or work out some kind of peaceful solution? I think not, but you'll never get it, so I don't even know why I bother to ask.
If he had let the South secede, he would have had less power.
Perhaps he was simply stupid, or evil, or both, because his actions were certainly not what I would consider to be the correct response to the demand of separation, by the Confederacy . The draft riots that happened, in the North, are ample proof that many, many people did not want to engage in that war.
My point is society there can be overly lax on rules and law but some of that can be explained by bribes and corruption, not necessarily stating that is why it's easier to get Prednisone there.
The UK is a police state except with the unique exception that cops are often without guns. I watched some videos a while back in which cops harassed people for not "properly following COVID rules" and citizens told them to go **** themselves.
The MSM tends to cherry pick what crimes they cover.
My point with Ukraine is it would have been a lot more difficult for Russian military in Ukraine if all the Ukrainian citizens were armed with guns.
As for your last comments, I am aware that Russians (males, anyway) are required to take military training and can only become exempt with an approved reason.
Interesting that there's zero mention of the generations of black people who would've been forced to live in bondage. But I suppose those widows, fatherless children, and traumatized young men mean nothing to you?
Exactly why he didn't want a war. The South went ahead because they felt they had nothing to lose by doing so, and everything to gain -- Lincoln and the North in general had a lot to lose.
I'm not sure what you would have done differently, but a couple of our neighbours in Europe can attest to the fact that once a country segregates, you have a hell of a time putting it back together again, if you manage at all.
The South were going to war either way, so his options were to let them or to prevent them. He did the only sensible thing available to him in my opinion.
- Aug 28, 2019
- 1,496
- Tinnitus Since
- -
- Cause of Tinnitus
- -
Who, of the US citizens, would like to see the country split into two? Why keep together a country so divided?
- Aug 5, 2019
- 1,852
- Tinnitus Since
- 05/2019
- Cause of Tinnitus
- Autoimmune hyperacusis from Sjogren's Syndrome
Haha, this thread gets so weird when it becomes too conspiratorial. I've been admonished for being a part of a left wing bubble (despite sticking up for cops with difficult jobs), yet I've seen some hardcore right wing brainwashing (almost directly from Breitbart) get injected into this thread. If you even begin to defend any part of BLM and the tortured history of minorities, you are an anti-American Marxist, but thinking Trump is more valuable than Lincoln is apparently some low key, casual opinion. This thread is off the rails.
We should have let them secede. It would have saved us a lot of trouble.
Nobody gives a damn about the dead, the wounded, and the widows and orphans. They were mostly white, and don't count. If you disagree with this, you're called a racist.
One man died in that war, for every five slaves that were freed form bondage. That's actually far worse than slavery. At least, as property, it was in the masters' best interest to keep his slaves alive and healthy.
Keep your Civil War, and if the statue destroyers want to find the one that actually deserves to be melted down, they need look no further than towards the the monument in Washington, D.C. I'd rather see a statue of Donald Trump in that spot, than Abraham Lincoln.
I don't understand the question, I have already expressed my concern for the dead soldiers, their widows, and children.
We don't know what would have happened to them, had the South seceded. It has been said by experts on the subject, that slavery was not sustainable and would have died out, without interference. Forcing people to fight for somebody else, with a very high probability of death of the soliders, when the slaves were not in mortal danger of any kind, is not something that I agree with, especially in light of what the scholars have said about slavery becoming obsolete, very shortly.
- Aug 28, 2019
- 1,496
- Tinnitus Since
- -
- Cause of Tinnitus
- -
I prefer the rule of law, except when it comes to war and defence of the nation.
The UK does have strict laws, but having lived in Russia for so long I would much rather that than what goes on here.
Maybe, maybe not. Russia could roll through Ukraine anytime it feels like it if it wanted to.
You can 1) dodge it, 2) buy your way out, 3) go to university or 4) be deemed medically unfit.
Many people get out of serving as the pay is crap, the conditions are crap and there is hazing that takes place.
Like him or not, I think we can all agree on one thing.
Abe Lincoln was the greatest vampire hunter of all time!
It's off the rails if you are brainwashed, as most people are, into worshiping bloodthirsty, inhuman, war-mongering, leaders, like Lincoln, and others, who have no feelings, absolutely none, for anybody.
I would not like to see this happen, but if it were split into two nations, and it was done peacefully, I could live with it. What's so terrible about that?
- Aug 5, 2019
- 1,852
- Tinnitus Since
- 05/2019
- Cause of Tinnitus
- Autoimmune hyperacusis from Sjogren's Syndrome
My friend, I think the framing of this is all wrong.
Most people aren't happy that a bunch of white soldiers died. They just don't put the blame on people who wanted to end slavery. You talk about how historians say that it was obvious that slavery would have ended on its own. So then why did southern leaders insist on offering white soldiers as a sacrifice? If their vision was slavery ending in a few years, why secede at all? The logic doesn't check out to me. You're using some twisted (and dubious) hindsight to justify what leaders were thinking in present time.
Also, the idea in the first place that slavery was about to end doesn't make sense to me. Maybe in the precise form that it was implemented, but you are talking about a country that after 1863, required another 100 years for black people to even vote -- passed semi-begrudgingly by LBJ, a racist who called his chauffeur and others the n word regularly.
Yes, be mad that people died. Just be mad at the right ideas that led to that death.
Your takeaway from American history is that white people don't matter. That's unbelievable.
