Saul Alinsky has a very fitting quote for you. If I can find it. Better call Saul.Originally Posted by RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
Saul Alinsky has a very fitting quote for you. If I can find it. Better call Saul.
Ah, now I get it. I meant "Bush-supporting" not "Bush supporting" - as in shock jocks that supported Bush. My bad.
All I said about Limbaugh's show was that he was one of the ones spreading the paranoia that Obama would somehow cheat the election system. And I gave you a link to prove it. If you read any more than that into my post, that's on you.
You crossed a line with him and made it personal when you used the term/name/word Limbaugh. Ha, of course he's going to read more into it. That's his Jesus.
On point - if anyone believes any of this nonsense they need to be examined. Staying in office or stopping elections? So so so ridiculous...
It takes one to know one, and I know you don't know a damn thing.
Leftists that get their talking points and negative energy from media sources that constantly demonize America and its laws and culture, and who rarely if ever listen to Limbaugh, apparently believe a lot of things about him and others that are wrong.
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
First, it's very (very, very, very, very, very) unlikely that Obama or any other president would try to stay in office past the Constitutional limit. Reagan and B Clinton joked about a third term, Bush the Lesser and Obama both joked about how much easier it would be to be a dictator. Nobody that aspires to the office just plain wants to give up the power, but neither event has occurred.
Second, I second the idea that the military would intervene, if a president was crazy enough to try to stay on. Not because they're conservative, but because they swear an oath to the Constitution, not to any person.
I don't know this to be the case, but I would certainly hope that preventing this is also covered during training for the presidential detail of the Secret Service.
Ukraine: Not Our Fight.
More epicycles!
Replace the word Limbaugh or Leftists in your sentence with any politician, entertainer, artist, group, etc and the sentence remains true. It's America, we're all too damn busy with our own **** and form many of our opinions based on what others we "trust" tell us.
It takes one to know one, and I know you don't know a damn thing.
And I don't mean to infer that I believe this in fact will happen. The point I was making is that early in his Presidency we heard this, and nobody even thought a second about it's possibility. But after seeing BHO, and what he has done with respect to exceeding his authority, to me today, it doesn't seem as out there like it did 5-6 years ago. This guy has done some things that no one would have ever seen done 20-30 years ago. He is "different" I think most anyone can agree on that. And he is good friends with Bill Ayers, despite what he said during his first campaign about Ayers just being some guy in the neighborhood. Ayers has advocated revolution and an overthrow of the US government back 40 years ago, and recent interviews led me to believe that he has not strayed terribly far from his radical roots. BHO has associated himself with some real hard left characters. The media never spent much time on those associations for some reason (wink, wink)
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, it's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-----Winston Churchill
I sure remember a big media sh.it storm about Ayers, so I don't understand your definition of "not spending much time".
My only point was that this fear of a power grab happened in '04 and the one that involved Limbaugh I referenced was for the '12 election. I'm assuming it has happened more times in the past too. I'm sure it came up during the depression when we had a 4 term president and during WWII. It was even more understandable during the Civil war since it was hard to even define what the country was. (I don't know if the confederacy held elections during that time). And yet we still managed to hold elections. So label me naive to think this is utter nonsense this time around. Come to think of it, this thread is first mention I've seen for this election. Has this really come up nationally or is this just some mini-paranoia here?
Yes, the Confederacy held elections -- both Congressional and Presidential.
SicEm you seem to be knowledgeable of the Civil War. I watched a documentary the other day that stated that the US Constitution was actually more pro-slavery than the Confederate Constitution. They went on to say that the Confederate Constitution allowed slavery to be decided by the states individually. If a Confederate State, say Florida voted to abolish slavery, then that was their choice. The Emancipation Proclamation only addressed slavery in the "rebellion states". Thought that was interesting.
Also most people are not aware of the high Tariffs on manufactured goods that existed. It was many times less expensive for the South to trade with foreign countries, even with the tariffs, than to ship goods down from the North, where the cost were higher because of shipping costs. This was a major revenue source for the North and many canals and train tracks were built with these monies, a lot of at the expense of the Southern States. These tariffs played a huge role in the American Civil War. Something you do not hear much about. Usually what you hear is it's all about slavery. It was not.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, it's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-----Winston Churchill
In my experience this is usually typed by someone with an affinity for the confederate flag, who refers to Lincoln as a terrorist and uses the phrase "the war of northern aggression". That's not what I get from reading your writing, generally. I'm sure it was not ALL about slavery but that was the main issue, hence, the Emancipation thingee. From a brief reading, he was being careful to couch the emancipation in terms of saving the Union and not simply being a humanitarian. There were a handful of states that were under Union control that he needed as part of the Union and not part of the confederacy. Pretty skillful on his part at the time. That said, slavery was outlawed in all of those states in short order. Still, I learned something today. Thanks.
How can you be so sure?
OleVet Posse Instigator
I might add that thousands of confederate soldiers died that never had slaves and didn't realty care. The economy of the south was an agrarian economy and it's success was based in large part on cheap labor. Without the slave labor, the South's production of cotton, tobacco and idigo would be reduced greatly, and their standard of living would obviously suffer. Think of what the outrage would be today if Washington took control of the oil fields, or made some law that would limit their production or a company's income? Probably be a few folks around here wanting to go to war about that too.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, it's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-----Winston Churchill
Time traveler here.
I just saw a piece on the History channel in reference to the Catholic Church/Popes/Vatican etc....both Lincoln and Jackson wrote letters to the Pope in 1863. Lincoln didn't mention a thing about the devastation of the war whereas Jackson wrote all about it. Guess Lincoln's was more of a formal type letter and Jackson's seemed more personal. The take is Jackson wanted the Pope to recognize the Confederate Government..giving them legitimize. The Pope returned a correspondence referring to Jackson as "President of the Confederacy".
Getting WAY off point...obama is a frickin dictator and will do what he can to stay in power...(that's more like it!)
How do you know if you get there, if you don't know where you are going?..oh and I had 1,713 post on the "other board"..I hate being a rookie again!
It's in my wheel house yes! I'm a former national officer in the Children of the Confederacy, and I'm currently a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. The actual war history of the conflict doesn't interest me nearly as much as the political history and the political theory of the conflict (I'm much more a WWII buff when talking actual war history). But the politics of the war are front and center in my wheel house. I don't know that I'd go so far as to say the US Constitution was more pro-slavery, but the rest of that is absolutely true. There were slave holding Union states (remember the Union did not go to war to end slavery; the Union went to war to preserve the Union), and the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in territory that wasn't even the United States. It was a PR stunt. The war was not going horribly well for the Union, and public will to continue fighting people who just wanted their own government was waning. So Lincoln moved the goal posts. Instead of fighting to deny people the right to form a government of their own choosing; he convinced the public to fight to ensure freedom. One is clearly a more erstwhile goal than the other.
This is 100% right. It went both ways, in fact. The south could ship its raw goods to Europe and import finished products cheaper with a higher profit than by shipping raw material north and buying northern goods. It's why the south favored free-trade. The north always wanted higher tarrifs which would have cut into the south's profits and made goods more expensive to import which would allow the north to set even higher prices. The south had little means of production, but they had the raw goods. The situation was reversed for the north. The abolitionist movement was even started and encouraged, in part, by northern farmers (and even industrial workers) who resented the south's source of 'free' labor. Which, despite the lack of political and legal freedom, slaves often lived under better living conditions than inner-city factory workers. Even after the war, those northern factory workers did NOT want former slaves coming north because they would work for less and would steal jobs. Which is another thing you don't hear about...Also most people are not aware of the high Tariffs on manufactured goods that existed. It was many times less expensive for the South to trade with foreign countries, even with the tariffs, than to ship goods down from the North, where the cost were higher because of shipping costs. This was a major revenue source for the North and many canals and train tracks were built with these monies, a lot of at the expense of the Southern States. These tariffs played a huge role in the American Civil War. Something you do not hear much about. Usually what you hear is it's all about slavery. It was not.
Damned immigrants.
Interesting stuff, actually.
The Vatican was actually the only foreign government to formally recognize the Confederate States of America.
The Confederate Cabinet also had a Jewish Secretary of State and Secretary of War (Judah Benjamin) loooong before the US Cabinet would have the same. More Jews fought for the south than the north. There were also more Hispanics who fought for the south. There were more American Indians who fought for the south than the north. There were, of course, more blacks who fought for the North; however, when the south did allow blacks to freely served -- they were paid the same wages as their white counterparts. The Union Army, by contrast, only paid black troops 2/3 of what their white counterparts made. After the war, the Confederate veterans association never segregated black veterans at their functions; however, the Union veteran organization did segregate.
Oddly enough, there were also about half a dozen Chinese in the Confederate Army...
Posting Permissions
